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

2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

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

  • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

    If this is legit what does Grigson have over Irsay.

    Seriously I want to know.

    I have my suspicions but still not sure how true it could be.

    Comment


    • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

      These reports are making me not even want to watch next season. Why bother?

      Comment


      • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

        Originally posted by PaulGeorgeForPresident View Post
        These reports are making me not even want to watch next season. Why bother?

        Because some fans like the actual team despite the owner ask Cowboys fans and Redskins fans.

        On a related note if Pagano stays that means we are probably the frontrunner for Hard Knocks.
        Last edited by Basketball Fan; 01-14-2017, 08:27 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          Because some fans like the actual team despite the owner ask Cowboys fans and Redskins fans.
          Nothing like this. Grigson and Pagano are going to mail it in next season knowing they're going to be replaced.

          Comment


          • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

            Originally posted by PaulGeorgeForPresident View Post
            Nothing like this. Grigson and Pagano are going to mail it in next season knowing they're going to be replaced.
            I was referring to the players I like the team despite the owner. I've been through worse seasons than this as a Colts fan the Manning years were an aberration.

            At this rate do you think they are going to be replaced if Grigson is a breaking point dude has job security apparently. Pagano as well if they are both connected.

            Comment


            • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post



              I'm not surprised if it was really an equity issue that Irsay's daughters wouldn't cave. They want it kept in the family and Manning isn't family.

              So Manning will probably go to a team that will give him that equity (likely Titans or Saints who have a dramatic ownership situation themselves but Benson hates his kids enough to give it to an outsider)
              He's not going to be anything more than a minority shareholder in any situation he enters. It's not like this was a deal to give the franchise to Manning once Irsay moved on. The Irsay kiddos are going to inherit the franchise and that isn't going to change regardless.

              Comment


              • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                He's not going to be anything more than a minority shareholder in any situation he enters. It's not like this was a deal to give the franchise to Manning once Irsay moved on. The Irsay kiddos are going to inherit the franchise and that isn't going to change regardless.
                Of course but the Titans/Saints would be more inclined to give him that the Irsays aren't is my point. They don't want even give a minority stake to anyone who isn't family.

                Comment


                • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                  What are the NFL's rules on interviewing people with teams who are still playing? Does their season have to be done before any of them can be contacted?

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    Of course but the Titans/Saints would be more inclined to give him that the Irsays aren't is my point. They don't want even give a minority stake to anyone who isn't family.
                    It's not that they don't want to give him any stake--it's that they can't agree on how much.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                      I would assume there would be a LOT of value having the Manning name associated with the Colts in an ownership capacity. Enough so that it would be worth considering for the current owners just as an investment itself.
                      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, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        It's not that they don't want to give him any stake--it's that they can't agree on how much.
                        I'm guessing they don't want to give him any at all. I find it hard to believe that they want even a minority stakeholder I mean only the Irsay family owns the team they don't have outsiders. Most NFL teams don't.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                          Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                          What are the NFL's rules on interviewing people with teams who are still playing? Does their season have to be done before any of them can be contacted?
                          No they can still be in contact

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                            I'm guessing they don't want to give him any at all. I find it hard to believe that they want even a minority stakeholder I mean only the Irsay family owns the team they don't have outsiders. Most NFL teams don't.
                            This is where I'm envious of the Green Bay fans.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                              Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                              What are the NFL's rules on interviewing people with teams who are still playing? Does their season have to be done before any of them can be contacted?
                              I don't think so. I read somewhere that Josh McD had multiple interviews recently for HC positions. There's probably some courtesy protocol that the teams follow with each other.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2016 Indianapolis Colts regular season thread - Here comes the pain!

                                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                                I don't think so. I read somewhere that Josh McD had multiple interviews recently for HC positions. There's probably some courtesy protocol that the teams follow with each other.
                                Think some more...

                                Assistant coaches with first-round bye in playoffs

                                Teams are also allowed to interview assistant coaches who have a first-round bye in the playoffs. However, the interview must take place that week. Candidates can choose to decline the interview to focus on preparing their current team for the postseason.

                                For example: When Atlanta Falcons head coach Dan Quinn was the defensive coordinator for the Seattle Seahawks during the 2015 playoffs, the Falcons interviewed him during Seattle’s first-round bye. The Falcons were not permitted to actually hire Quinn until after Seattle’s run had concluded with the Super Bowl XLIX loss to the New England Patriots.

                                This year, Falcons offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan and Chiefs special teams coach Dave Toub were two candidates who participated in a little interview speed-dating while their teams enjoyed a bye. Both interviewed with the Broncos, while Shanahan met with the 49ers and Toub got together with the Chargers.

                                Assistant coach following a win or loss in the Wild Cardround

                                If an assistant coach’s team loses in the Wild Card round, the candidate can interview with any team that goes through the proper channels to secure an interview. However, if the assistant coach’s team wins, teams need approval for an interview, which has to take place before the divisional round.

                                For example: Lions defensive coordinator Teryl Austin and Dolphins defensive coordinator Vance Joseph had to wait until their teams were knocked out of the Wild Card round before they could interview. As soon as their seasons were over, there were reports that Austin had interviews lined up with the Rams and Chargers, while Joseph had one set with the Broncos.

                                On the other hand, Seattle defensive coordinator Kris Richard needed the OK from the Seahawks to interview with the Bills after his team beat the Lions. Richard met with the Bills one day later, on Sunday night.

                                Interviews after the divisional round

                                No initial interviews can be requested or granted for candidates whose teams are still in the playoffs after the divisional round, i.e. anyone from the four teams vying for a conference championship.

                                For example: If the Patriots beat the Texans during the divisional round, no team with a vacancy could suddenly decide that they’d like to set up a first interview with Josh McDaniels or Matt Patricia. Teams wouldn’t be able to interview of those two for the first time until after the Patriots were eliminated from the playoffs.

                                Assistant coach with a team that advances to the Super Bowl

                                Teams are typically only allowed to interview a candidate one time while the candidate’s team is in the playoffs. However, there’s an exception to that rule for teams playing in the Super Bowl thanks to the two-week window between the conference championships and the big game itself.

                                If an assistant coach’s team advances to the Super Bowl, teams again need permission to schedule a second interview.

                                Once the assistant’s team has arrived to the Super Bowl site, the candidate can’t participate in an interview. The interview must take place the week after the Conference Championship, but before the team travels to the Super Bowl.

                                For example: If the Falcons win the NFC title game, the Broncos would be able to ask for permission to set up a second interview with Kyle Shanahan the week after the conference championship but before the team travels to the Super Bowl site.
                                https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnat...?client=safari
                                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

                                Working...
                                X