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

Who will give the Colts their first loss?

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

  • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

    Tom Brady wasn't the reason they won.

    Their defense/offensive line that allowed them to run was the reason they won.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Tom Brady wasn't the reason they won.

      Their defense/offensive line that allowed them to run was the reason they won.

      People seem to forget that
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Tom Brady wasn't the reason they won.

        Their defense/offensive line that allowed them to run was the reason they won.
        Won in which year? In 2003 when they won the superbowl with Antoine Smith? You've got to be kidding me. That guy is one of the most mediocre RBs of all time.

        By your logic, Every hall of fame QB that ever won a superbowl won it off of defense and a superior O-Line..because you can't make it to the SB without either of them.

        I could turn this right back around onto the Colts if I really wanted to. Peyton Manning is nothing without pro-bowl WRs around him and a superior offensive line. Not a true statement, but that's the same bs logic you guys are giving me.

        Comment


        • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

          Its always about the offensive and defensive lines.

          Without them, the QBs and other skilled players never even have a chance to make plays.

          Since86 didn't mention RBs in his post. Having a great offensive line makes the RBs look good too. Willie Parker isn't very good, either, but he's now got the longest touchdown rush in SB history. Because Alan Faneca gave a great pull and Jeff Hartings and Hines Ward delivered great downfield blocks.

          But its Willie Parker's name that goes in the record book, not the blockers who made the whole thing possible.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

            Originally posted by Moses View Post

            Colts fans of all should know just how good Brady is when crunch time rolls around. Did you not watch him carve up the Vikings? Now that the passing game is clicking, the Patriots are a damn near unstoppable team. Just imagine if they actually had a game-breaking receiver like Randy Moss or Steve Smith.
            Patriots are a great team but they are not near unstoppable there are a handful of teams that can beat them: Colts, DENVER, Bears (maybe). There is no disputing the patriots have the best coach/ing the game probably has ever saw.

            They don't need a Randy Moss or Steve Smith, actually that is probably the last thing they want. All they need is Tom Brady, a good defense and a nice O line. Brady throws so damn perfect he doesn't need those attentioning grabbing recievers, if anything it would hinder their team more then help. Anyone that can catch is going to be a good reciever, did you see their second round pick Chad Jackson (rookie)? Brady throw it so perfect to him everytime he looked like Smith or Moss. This is why they didn't care to let Branch go, Brady made Branch and Brady will make Jackson and when he (jackson) gets that attention he will move on to another team. Marv. Harrison is the only top 5 reciever that would fit in because he doesn't demand the ball but TO, Moss, Smith, Chad Johnson wouldn't do anything for that team expect be a distraction. I LOVE how the patriots play, they have such an old school, blue collar, well coached TEAM (not just 2-3 superstars). Now I hope the Colts kick their *** but I'm not going to hate on the way they play the game.

            Comment


            • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

              Originally posted by Moses View Post
              Are you trying to tell me that you could have signed both Edge and Reggie? It was either 1 or the other because Edge didn't want to be franchised yet again. You didn't have the money to sign both to extensions because the money was tied up...it was either one or the other. Peyton Manning hasn't the second biggest QB contract in football..just a little bit behind Mike Vick. He's a great player and deserves it..but when you have that much money tied up into just 1 player, it makes it hard to string together a bunch of solid defensive aquisitions to make a good defense. Simon and McFarland are starts..but you are going to need a ton of signings of decent defensive Vets. I don't even think Simon will ever be playing football again.
              I have to agree with you (in a way). It is bull**** on how much money the Colts spend on the Offense. Give Peyton what ever he wants and keep marvin but beyond them, there isn't much more talent needed on the offense. Peyton just like Brady can make almost anyone who can catch look like a star, they didn't need to sign Wayne to that huge contract, thank goodness they didn't re-sign Edge, we don't need them. Wayne's contract was kind of stupid, we could of really got some good defenders.

              Comment


              • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                Since86 didn't mention RBs in his post. Having a great offensive line makes the RBs look good too..
                All you need to write to prove this point is: Denver Broncos. The bronco's line can make any decent running back look like a stud, they've even said it themselves lol. The zone block is awesome in denver. I love how the broncos make their running backs look awesome then trade them for defense studs like Champ Bailey. Portis for Bailey what a good deal, that is worth learning how to zone block all in its self.lol

                Comment


                • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                  Originally posted by Moses View Post
                  Are you trying to tell me that you could have signed both Edge and Reggie? It was either 1 or the other because Edge didn't want to be franchised yet again. You didn't have the money to sign both to extensions because the money was tied up...it was either one or the other. Peyton Manning hasn't the second biggest QB contract in football..just a little bit behind Mike Vick. He's a great player and deserves it..but when you have that much money tied up into just 1 player, it makes it hard to string together a bunch of solid defensive aquisitions to make a good defense. Simon and McFarland are starts..but you are going to need a ton of signings of decent defensive Vets. I don't even think Simon will ever be playing football again.
                  When did I say that?

                  I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm sure we could have sgned both but that would have been it. Like I said before, we resigned Wayne and platoon of other free agents to good money, which included Brackett, June, and Mathis. We have also gone out and paid pretty good money to two DTs, as well as making Adam, one of if not the highest paid kicker. Again I fail to see how we're in any worse situation than most teams.

                  I just find it funny that a Pats fan of all people says we have to resign our own players as well as sign a ton of free agents to succeed...
                  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


                  • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                    Originally posted by Moses View Post
                    Won in which year? In 2003 when they won the superbowl with Antoine Smith? You've got to be kidding me. That guy is one of the most mediocre RBs of all time.
                    Like Jay said, I NEVER mentioned RB.

                    Originally posted by Moses View Post
                    By your logic, Every hall of fame QB that ever won a superbowl won it off of defense and a superior O-Line..because you can't make it to the SB without either of them.
                    By my logic? Talk about jumping to conclusions. I said the PATRIOTS won because of it, not every team.


                    Originally posted by Moses View Post
                    I could turn this right back around onto the Colts if I really wanted to. Peyton Manning is nothing without pro-bowl WRs around him and a superior offensive line. Not a true statement, but that's the same bs logic you guys are giving me.
                    That isn't even close to the "logic" we're giving you. Peyton Manning would have won the same amount of SB's if he was switched positions with Tom Brady. That's the only thing that needs to be asked. Would the Patriots still have those rings if they were switched? Yes, they would, and the Colts would still be without.

                    I think it's funny that you think Tom Brady makes the Patriots, but don't think Peyton makes his pro-bowl WR's. Look at Brandon Stokely's production the past few years if you want to see a difference.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I'm now convinced you know absolutely nothing about football.
                      wrong

                      Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
                      Took you awhile. I figured it out when he said the Colts would have a tough time against elite running teams, and listed the Titans.
                      you won by 1 point, you gave up 214 rushing yards and i never called them elite. sorry.

                      And apparently being clutch and winning dont mean alot on thsi board as fas ar greatest QB's of all time go.
                      STARBURY

                      08 and Beyond

                      Comment


                      • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                        Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                        And apparently being clutch and winning dont mean alot on thsi board as fas ar greatest QB's of all time go.
                        Did you see everyone's top-ten?

                        Surely you aren't this clueless, are you? Its a hell of a compliment for people to have Brady in the top-ten, and that *is* because he's a winner. Even Moses backed down from his top-five comment when he put some serious thought into who the top-five QBs in history really are.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                          I don;t think he is top 5 now. But I do believe he will be the greatest ever when he is done.

                          And basically everyone here said Peyton is better than Barday - that is what I meant by that last comment.
                          STARBURY

                          08 and Beyond

                          Comment


                          • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            That isn't even close to the "logic" we're giving you. Peyton Manning would have won the same amount of SB's if he was switched positions with Tom Brady. That's the only thing that needs to be asked. Would the Patriots still have those rings if they were switched? Yes, they would, and the Colts would still be without.

                            I think it's funny that you think Tom Brady makes the Patriots, but don't think Peyton makes his pro-bowl WR's. Look at Brandon Stokely's production the past few years if you want to see a difference.
                            You can't say Manning would have won in the playoffs. We've seen how he performs in the playoffs.

                            And Tom Brady is a large part of why the Patriots win games. I would love to see Manning's stats if he lost Wayne and Harrison. He'd still be a great QB, but if you gave him guys like Doug Gabriel and Troy Brown, would he be able to produce on a consistent basis? Tom Brady makes the NE offense work. I don't know of many players who can make nearly every random WR/TE on their team look as good as Brady does. Any QB that can turn Reche Caldwell into a threat is a pretty damn good QB.

                            And Peyton boosts the stats of Harrison and Wayne a little bit, but those guys would still be complete studs on any other team. Stokely is also a pretty good WR when he isn't injured..so you can't really use him as an argument. I want to see some WR who is a complete scrub thrive while Peyton is on the field..IE Caldwell...but we'll never see that because the Colts spend alot of money keeping very good offensive players on the field. Peyton's had the luxury of having great wide-outs to throw to his entire NFL career.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                              Originally posted by Moses View Post
                              Wasn't my point. The QBs on that list earned their rings. They were the reasons their team got the rings. Rings do decide who the better players are..because the best players play well when it matters. Some mediocre QBs who got rings weren't the reason their team won a superbowl..but all the guys I listed were the main reason their team won it. This is going to turn into another Rings vs Stats war that will never end.

                              Robert Horry, top 10 all time NBA player. Obviously!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Who will give the Colts their first loss?

                                Originally posted by Moses View Post
                                You can't say Manning would have won in the playoffs. We've seen how he performs in the playoffs.
                                Career playoff stats:

                                Peyton Manning Postseason Stats:

                                # 322 passes attempted
                                # 193 passes completed
                                # 2,461 passing yards
                                # 15 passing touchdowns
                                # 8 passes intercepted

                                Tom Brady Postseason Stats:

                                # 367 passes attempted
                                # 225 passes completed
                                # 2493 passing yards
                                # 15 passing touchdowns
                                # 5 passes intercepted

                                That Peyton Manning, a regular dud in the playoffs. That Tom Brady, a regular god in the playoffs ..... right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X