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

2018 Non Colts Regular Season Thread

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

    Maybe that's what you'll remember.
    What makes me scratch my head is that BasketballFan often feels that Colts fans are often too dismissive at what was accomplished in the Manning era........yet sheís saying we were never really that much of a rival with the Pats? What?! Thatís the biggest insult Iíve ever seen lobbed at the Manning era Colts.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

      What makes me scratch my head is that BasketballFan often feels that Colts fans are often too dismissive at what was accomplished in the Manning era........yet sheís saying we were never really that much of a rival with the Pats? What?! Thatís the biggest insult Iíve ever seen lobbed at the Manning era Colts.

      Except you keep making the Colts vs Pats and the Manning era interchangeable here when we played the Pats after Manning was released from the Colts. The results weren't pretty(we haven't even beaten them since actually). So no the Colts really weren't legit rivals I mean we did get an AFC title game win from them (which made it slightly less one sided) The Pats have stomped over the Colts countless times in the postseason in comparison.

      The Pats legit rivals if they have one at this point is past NFL dynasties.


      Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
      Colts-Pats was without question a rivalry in the 2000's. Anyone trying to argue it wasn't is either being dense or has a very strange definition of rivalry.


      I guess the Broncos and Pats weren't rivals when Manning played there, then. The Broncos were 2-0 in the postseason matchups. Completely one-sided.

      They weren't and it was more of a carryover of Brady vs Manning storyline than the Pats vs Broncos who didn't have much of a storyline beyond that. Its rather sad for the Colts that Manning had more postseason success vs the Pats in his short stint with the Broncos than he did here.

      You could argue Colts vs Pats in the 2000s was really more about Brady vs Manning as well because it sure hasn't been about the Colts franchise vs the Pats at this point.
      Last edited by Basketball Fan; 11-06-2018, 10:07 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Iíve read your post multiple times and donít know what in the world youíre saying. It was Colts vs Pats for a long time......Manning played on the Colts for a while didnít he? Lol. Colts also had a lot of other big name players, plus Dungy & Polian, who all contributed to the rivalry. Manning was also at his physical peak as a Colt.

        Manning and Brady in the postseason always came down to home field. Since you like to gloss over context, Iíll give you a refresher - the teams the Colts lost to in Foxboro in 03 and 04 were the absolute peak of the Pats dynasty with superior defenses to the teams Denver played a decade later. Thatís why the challenge of beating them was so big, and thatís why the Colts finally having some success against them in the mid 2000ís was a big deal (the success which apparently torments you for some reason).

        Colts - Pats in the 2000ís was a major NFL rivalry. Everything that happened after Manning left doesnít change that. Youíre dead wrong and not a single soul who paid attention to the NFL over that period would agree with you.
        For some reason you like pouring cold water on anything good the Colts ever achieved, even with Manning. Very bizarre. Moving on.

        Most things can be debated, but this canít. Never in my wildest dreams did I think a statement about the Colts-Pats being a rivalry at one time would be challenged lol.

        Rivalry doesnít imply ďdead equal successĒ. Yankees - Red Sox was considered a rivalry long before Boston started winning World Series titles again. Iím genuinely beginning to question if you were watching the Colts 10-15 years ago. And please donít respond with whatís happened since 2011, not talking about that. Itís totally irrelevant to what happened from 03-10, which canít be changed.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-07-2018, 12:09 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          The Colts Pats thing was always very interesting. Bradyís first career start was against the Colts. Brady had a lot of early success against Indianapolis, winning his first 6 matchups, 3 of which in dominant fashion, 2 of which were in the playoffs.

          Then Manning and the Colts went on a bit of a roll and won 4 in a row, and 5 of the next 6 including the epic AFC title game that completely changed the Pats and Brady forever (more on this in a minute).

          Brady and Manning needed one another to achieve the level of greatness both of them realized. Manning needed to watch how Brady leaned on his teammates and defense as opposed to looking to aggressively bomb it downfield every possession in order to win playoff games. Brady needed to watch Manning to realize the amount of control over the line of scrimmage that he could have as a QB. He went from a game Manager with decent numbers to the guy that broke the regular season TD record. These guys and these franchises sharpened eachother during this timeframe.

          Brady and Belichick have said countless times that they realized they needed to revamp their offensive system completely once they lost that AFCCG to Manning and the Colts. And thatís when we saw the birth of the offense that Brady has been running to perfection ever since.

          Once 18 and the Colts got that initial monkey off their backs, they scared the Pats shitless. Check out the Randy Moss acquisition. Check out the acquisitions of individuals that had legal/mental/off field issues but were talented (Pats never did that before 2007). Check out the control Bill have to Brady at the LOS to call the game. Check out that 4th and 2 call.

          Check the the ratings for those Colts/Pats primetime games. Check the week long media coverage prior to every matchup. Check the countless articles written. Check the quotes from the players. Feel animosity from the fans.

          Even though the Pats have the upper hand in most of the matchups, no other team or franchise had challenged those guys the way the Manning era Colts did. They werenít rivalry without question
          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-07-2018, 12:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Great post Ace, obviously it was a rivalry lol. Iíve still yet to see any other NFL matchup that gets the national attention that those 03-10 Colts-Pats games got.

            Yes, Manning got the Pats in the playoffs twice at the end of his career in Denver (my favorite sports stat ever is Manning being 3-1 against Brady in the AFCCG), but Manningís Denver career was short lived because of his age and just didnít have the drama and animosity of the Colts-Pats days. The story back then was the Colts getting the monkey off their back against a prime dynasty. Also, those franchises despised each other (Polian complaining about the rules, etc).
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-07-2018, 01:48 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              I forgot all about that, but yes. That was the birth of the illegal contact rule after the Pats mugged Marcus Pollard and Marvin Harrison in the snow at Foxboro.

              So much stemmed from that rivalry. Iím not sure what else you could even define that situation as

              Comment


              • #67
                Yes, ďThe Patriot ActĒ lol.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Ace raised another good point - the Pats absolutely changed their methods after losing that 07 AFCCG against the Colts. As has been stated, that was their third straight loss against Indy. When does that ever happen?

                  After that game, the Pats picked up Moss and turned into an enormous offensive juggernaut that slaughters teams to this very day. I definitely think losing three straight to the Colts got into their head a bit back then.

                  Pats got lucky that Moss was on such a cesspool franchise and just sitting there for the taking at a relatively young age still. Credit to them though because no one else beat them out. If the Pats donít get Moss, the Colts would have beat them in 07 too. Moss had 145 yards and a TD against us that year lol. In 07, the Colts lost Harrison to injury while the Pats added Moss. That was the difference in that game but the Colts still had their chances.

                  There has never been any team as fearsome as the 07 Pats. The Giants beating them is the biggest team story in my lifetime along with the 04 Red Sox. And then they did it 4 years later lol, which was just surreal.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-08-2018, 11:13 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    The Colts Pats thing was always very interesting. Bradyís first career start was against the Colts. Brady had a lot of early success against Indianapolis, winning his first 6 matchups, 3 of which in dominant fashion, 2 of which were in the playoffs.

                    Then Manning and the Colts went on a bit of a roll and won 4 in a row, and 5 of the next 6 including the epic AFC title game that completely changed the Pats and Brady forever (more on this in a minute).

                    Brady and Manning needed one another to achieve the level of greatness both of them realized. Manning needed to watch how Brady leaned on his teammates and defense as opposed to looking to aggressively bomb it downfield every possession in order to win playoff games. Brady needed to watch Manning to realize the amount of control over the line of scrimmage that he could have as a QB. He went from a game Manager with decent numbers to the guy that broke the regular season TD record. These guys and these franchises sharpened eachother during this timeframe.

                    Brady and Belichick have said countless times that they realized they needed to revamp their offensive system completely once they lost that AFCCG to Manning and the Colts. And thatís when we saw the birth of the offense that Brady has been running to perfection ever since.

                    Once 18 and the Colts got that initial monkey off their backs, they scared the Pats shitless. Check out the Randy Moss acquisition. Check out the acquisitions of individuals that had legal/mental/off field issues but were talented (Pats never did that before 2007). Check out the control Bill have to Brady at the LOS to call the game. Check out that 4th and 2 call.

                    Check the the ratings for those Colts/Pats primetime games. Check the week long media coverage prior to every matchup. Check the countless articles written. Check the quotes from the players. Feel animosity from the fans.

                    Even though the Pats have the upper hand in most of the matchups, no other team or franchise had challenged those guys the way the Manning era Colts did. They werenít rivalry without question

                    Except you're talking about something else entirely here you're making it about Brady/Manning and the impact of the NFL, careers, more than the Pats vs Colts. The Colts still have to deal with the Pats after Manning and failed miserably.

                    The Ravens ended the Pats run a couple times more than we did in the postseason actually but they weren't really a rivalry when it came down to it either. Same with the Broncos/Pats and that involved Brady vs Manning which the whole ratings, narratives etc could be used for that too the only thing that changed was Manning went elsewhere.

                    The Manning years made the Pats vs Colts a little less laughable as far as the games were concerned. However when it comes to the two franchises it still meant very little when they have 5 SBs which were mostly at our expense compared to the 1 SB win we were able to get at their expense.

                    The Pats are the Yankees and the Colts were the Atlanta Braves I mean its nice for what it was and I appreciate it but to say its on par with the Pats/Yankees as far as rivalries well yeah I can't really buy into that either. Not when its been so one sided.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Lol Manning was on the Colts and Brady was/is on the Pats. This isnít tennis or golf. With players that great, the entire teams get dragged into the moment.

                      After reading multiple posts of yours, I really donít know what point youíre trying to make. Youíre talking about the Yankees and Braves even though they arenít even in the same league (AL, NL). Ace gave a thorough run down of the history while all youíre saying is that the Pats are a better franchise than the Colts.......even though no one is challenging that obvious fact. What happened in 2015 had zero to do with how the rivalry was perceived in 2006 unless you were able to look into the future.

                      Its just weird: youíre a Colts and Manning fan right? Why canít you just admit that they were part of a great rivalry that was acknowledged by the other 7 billion people on Earth? Just bizarre for a Colts fan to pour cold water on such an interesting part of the teamís history.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-07-2018, 08:43 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        ÖÖÖ.. youíre a Colts and Manning fan right?...ÖÖ...
                        No. She's a Manning fan first and a Colts fan because that's where he played. And she thinks the Colts did Manning wrong at the end and simply holds that against the organization. Despises Irsay, all snide remarks about the post-Peyton Colts ÖÖÖÖ

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I guess the Lakers-Celtics in the Magic-Bird era wasnít really a rivalry because after all, Birdís Celtics only beat the Lakers in one NBA Finals while Magicís Lakers beat Boston twice. Also, the Lakers have been way more successful than Boston over the last 25 years, which I guess cheapens the Magic-Bird rivalry. Never mind the countless array of documentaries, interviews, books, and endless references to Magic/Bird in American pop culture over the last 35 years.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-08-2018, 11:27 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            The late 2000's was the golden age of Colts football. We had seven straight seasons of 12+ wins (a league record at the time, that New England has since broken, and keeps adding onto), a Super Bowl win, another Super Bowl appearance, and of course, all those memorable games with the Pats. The buildup for that AFCCG was insane...it was all I thought about the entire week leading up to it. Then, less than 10 months later, a regular season game where both teams were unbeaten. I've never seen a more hyped regular season game than that one. Then there was the 4th and 2 game...and the crazy comeback led by Manning that got us to that point. Manning almost brought us back from a big deficit the next year in Foxboro before he panicked and got picked off in the final minute when all we needed was a field goal to tie.


                            We are probably the only team that ever put a scare into Brady/Belichick and the Pats fanbase. Nobody ever comes back on them, they're always the ones doing it to other teams. I always took some pride in that we could scare the best team of our generation like that. It just blows my mind that any Colts fan would be so dismissive of that era and those games.


                            Next thing you know, someone will be claiming Hicks vs. Knicks wasn't a rivalry because no championships were won...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Last week when Tennessee beat Dallas, everyone just assumed it was a classic of case of Dallas being Dallas. Then the Titans beat the crap out of the Pats this weekend. Titans might be becoming a bit scary.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                ^^ I prefer to look at it as the Patsies starting their decline.

                                I hope. We all hope.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X