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:
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

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

2018 Non Colts Regular Season Thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Comment

    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      And now the calls start again to change NFL overtime rules. Argument being Mahomes didn't get a chance to touch the ball and match Brady and the game came down to a coin flip.

      The counter argument is KC got to put their defense on the field to stop Brady and couldn't do it. The counter to that was "Sometimes offenses score on even the best defenses. It happens, Otherwise there would be frequent 0-0 games. Shouldn't both teams get the same opportunity to play offense and defense in OT?"

      And then there's the safety issue... The game causes enough injuries as it is, prolonging it just risks more injuries and worn down players.
      I'd be open to some type of more college-style approach to OT. I like the idea of each side getting a chance.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata


      • Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

        It also helps the AFC has been mostly terrible too sure there have been times when a Manning led team or a Flacco led one got past them or they got knocked out by someone so the Steelers can go to the SB.

        The NFC has been a gauntlet in comparison.
        Nah, it’s been about half and half. Through the first half of the Pats’ reign, the AFC was the better conference with the likes of the Colts, Steelers, Ravens, and even the Chargers. NFC has some lean years until the early 2010’s. The NFC was absolute trash the year the Colts win the Super Bowl while the AFC was super tough (Colts and Pats each won road divisional games to set up the AFCCG at the Dome). Even the likes of the Jets were a formidable opponent in the late 00’s and early 2010’s. The Jets are in fact the last team to keep the Pats out of the AFCCG.

        Also, the Pats are 5-3 in the Super Bowl, so they have been beating the NFC teams all along. I’m sure the Pats overall record against the NFC over the last 18 years is insanely good too.

        Pats just win win win no matter what.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-22-2019, 02:09 PM.


        • One thing that has been in the Pats’ favor is that Peyton retired and the Giants are no longer relevant. The Manning’s own Brady and the Pats in the playoffs with a whopping 5-2 advantage, with a 5 consecutive victories. The Pats only two playoff wins against the Manning’s were those two playoff victories in Foxboro. After that, it was total Manning domination of the Pats in the playoffs. Peyton owned Brady in the AFCCG with a 3-1 record and Eli owned him win a 2-0 Super Bowl record.

          Brady is the GOAT and their success is insanely impressive, but at least we can always smile at the above. The Pats could win 15 Super Bowls and I guarantee you it would still annoy Pats fans that Peyton is 3-1 in the AFCCG against NE.

          The Pats recent Super Bowl runs have been aided by the absence of the Mannings, who just have their number in the playoffs. With the Manning’s out of the way, not many teams have the chops to knockout NE in the playoffs. Still impressed at what Philly accomplished.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-26-2019, 01:18 PM.


          • I actually felt like the Saints could knock off the Pats... but the Rams got in instead because of a BS no-call from four officials who all live in SoCal, and so the Pats are probly on their way to another ring, blah.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-28-2019, 02:57 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.


            • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              I actually felt like the Saints could knock off the Pats... but the Rams got in instead because of a BS no-call from four officials who all live in SoCal, and so the Pats are probly on their way to another ring, blah.
              Like I've been saying, the obdurate NFL struck again. Every year, teams are trying to dethrone the Pats, and occasionally, some teams will beat them. But in the end, the NFL has the final say and the Pats somehow keep ending up in the Super Bowl.


              • Boring as hell so far (start of 4th), but still anyone's game.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata


                • Pats w/another ring. The worst SB I can recall in recent memory.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata


                  • Thank god that the Rams had a 25 year old coach and 12 yo QB going up against the Goat. DYNASTY *****ES!
                    Edit Signature


                    • Originally posted by Natston View Post
                      Thank god that the Rams had a 25 year old coach and 12 yo QB going up against the Goat. DYNASTY *****ES!
                      Well the Giants were able to win with a young Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin not exactly world beaters except against the Pats twice

                      Last season with Nick Foles and the Eagles.

                      Stranger things have happened.

                      Course that means nothing tonight.

                      At least the season is over.

                      Josh McDaniels made the right decision apparently..


                      • Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

                        Josh McDaniels made the right decision apparently..

                        Roughly 99.983157% of the US population knew the Pats had a great shot of getting to the Super Bowl. This was never a question of “gee I wonder if NE will keep winning?” Everyone knew they would.

                        If he’s content with being Belichick’s OC in NE for a while, then sure he made the right decision. If his ultimate goal is to be a HC in this league, then he turned down an obviously great situation in Indy and now has a reputation for being a big douche for the way he handled it. He might very well have hurt his chances of getting a decent HC gig.

                        Does he get the NE HC job when Belichick hangs it up? Well Belichick could probably easily go 10 more years. That will probably be how we judge if he made a good decision or not, unless his goal is to always be a coordinator.

                        The result of this game does nothing to change that analysis. NE could win the next two Super Bowls and it doesn’t change the analysis. No one is surprised that NE kept winning. I was laughing so hard when Nantz and Romo kept peddling the BS that everyone said the NE dynasty was ending. Pretty much the only people who said that were the Patriots who were trying to create some motivational “no one believes in us” narrative even though most anyone who’s paid serious attention to the NFL over the years isn’t the least bit surprised that NE won again.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-04-2019, 08:28 AM.


                        • Didn't watch a second of it. Doens't sound like I missed anything.


                          • I didn't think it was a bad game. Once again, Belichick did what he does best- Designed a gameplan to take away what the other team wants to do on offense.

                            Honestly, Brady wasn't much this game, and you have to give the Rams some credit for their defense. But the two question marks were always going to be:
                            How much could the Pats slow the Rams' offense?
                            Could the Pats' offense keep them within a score, because you can generally count on Brady for one score when they NEED 1 score.

                            The answer to #1 was, the Pats' throttled them. That led to #2 being as easy as it could possibly be. Brady and the Pats offense wasn't asked to match the Rams score for score, drive after drive. They ultimately needed 4 points to win, though the reality is getting that one TD lead, and then ultimately that FG for the 10 point lead after eating clock forced the Rams into a literal no win situation.
                            Had the Rams been tied 3-3 on that final drive, it likely changes everything and thinking the Pats only needed 4 points to win is being short-sighted.
                            But the Pats did what they had to do... got a TD... continually held the Rams off... Then ate the clock and got a FG and left the Ram behind 10 points with under 2 mins remaining and no TO's.
                            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


                            • The season is overand the offseason begins. This is the most excited I have been for the offseason since 2015. The combine is just a couple of weeks away.