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

ESPN: Andrew Luck retiring

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Regarding the boos - letís stop acting like it was 60,000 people booing in mass. Iíve heard it multiple times and it seems like a relatively small (but loud) batch of fans near the tunnel.

    Sorry, but itís pretty effed up during a game to find out that your franchise QB is retiring as youíre staring at him on the sidelines. People are human and fan is short for fanatic. This whole ďI have more class when I root for grown men running around playing a game than you doĒ stuff cracks me up.

    So who leaked this to Schefter? Someone who was in the know really wanted to humiliate either Luck or the Colts or both. This was an extremely awkward situation for both parties and it couldnít have been worse timing.

    Someone was going for MAX humiliation by strategically leaking this to Schefter during a game. Luck was on the sidelines talking to teammates and all of the sudden he had to be faced with the fact that everyone in the stadium found out something that they were supposed to find out the next day.

    Seems like someone really wanted to stick it to Luck by strategically breaking it to Schefter during a game.

    Iím glad that Schefter got this massive scoop instead of Florio The Pius over at PatsFootballTalk. I grudgingly admit that Florio is good at breaking big stories (like McDaniels spurning the Colts), but he is unprofessionally biased with reporting. Almost Every Colts related article has some sort of snarky comment from him in it. And the Colts are far from the only thing where he introduces his biased opinions. Thereís a reason that site is littered with Obsessive Pats fans in the comments section - itís their hometown news site.

    Florio would have especially loved this scoop because he loves seeing the Colts get humiliated. So Iím really glad that Schefter got it instead. Schefter is much more professional because he has the ability to break news without inserting his snarky biased opinion into everything.
    I normally agree with you - probably 99% of the time - but I could not disagree more in this case. Do I think this makes the fans bad people? No. Do I think its a human reaction? Sure. However, I still stick by my earlier comments that its a bad look. You can see it was only a few fans but it was enough to hear it on TV and it was enough for Luck to hear it as he walked off the field. I keep hearing people say fans are emotionally attached and fanatics, etc - well guess what. So are players who figuratively and literally run into brick walls week after week for our entertainment (and a nice paycheck). We say its a business and they should go out on their terms - then when one does we get overly emotional and poo a potential NFL legend. Iím not saying I donít get it - what I am saying is its a bad look (and it would be a bad look for any NFL fan base to do so)

    If that makes me ďstupidĒ or ďinsecure about my own level of human decencyĒ then so be it.


    ____________________

    I said the same thing last night about the news. Someone on the radio said they thought the team leaked the news. If so that was really stupid. I have seen a lot of fans go after Schefter for breaking the news during the game. While I donít love the latest trend of reporting news first over getting it right - I cant blame the reporter in this case at all. We love when these guys break stories on trades, signings, cuts, etc. I will agree, though, that Luck could not have had a more awkward situation IMO. He even referenced it with him saying he was doing his retirement PC a day early and in a T-shirt versus a suit and time

    Comment


    • #92
      I thought this was a cool post from RG3



      Much love to my fellow Texas brother.
      Stiil remember our time together as Heisman finalists and how we laughed about almost being teammates at Stanford. The decision was only yours to make and Iím glad you have found peace in it. Respect https://twitter.com/NFL/status/1165457583882137601 Ö

      Comment


      • #93
        We can agree to disagree about the first part. Agree that Schefter of course has to report that immediately. When you get the biggest retirement scoop of all time, you donít sit on it and let someone else beat you to it. Had Schefter sat on it, then I think the leaker would have kept reaching out to other insiders until they found someone who would break it during the game. Someone in the know really wanted this to break during the game.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-25-2019, 09:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          People say Luck owes the fans nothing. Well, the fans are the reason he has the money to be able to retire. They pay his salary. Without fan interest these big contracts donít happen.
          Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-25-2019, 09:18 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Florio wrote a pretty good article about the booing:

            https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...circumstances/

            While itís indeed Luckís absolute right to walk away from the game, itís also the absolute right of the paying customers who reasonably may believe that they have been toyed with over the past couple of years to react negatively in the moment of having their non-enjoyment of a meaningless game, for which theyíd sacrificed hundreds of dollars and a latesummer Saturday night, interrupted by tweets informing them that, by the way, the next time they come to Lucas Oil Stadium for a game that actually counts, Andrew Luck wonít be working there anymore.

            If itís reasonable to be upset about learning this news while in the teamís home stadium watching a boring-*** game featuring 60 minutes of slappy vs. slappy, how should those people who are reasonably upset voice their opinions in that specific moment? They do what fans assembled at a sporting event always do to voice a negative opinion: They boo.



            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Florio is spot on here.

            More than anything, I think Colts fans were booing the shocking "WTF?" nature of this breaking during the middle of a game. Colts fans for years have felt that they haven't received forthcoming info from the team regardling injuries to star players. Then the news breaks during a boring pre-season home game that the franchise QB (who we literally cut Peyton Manning for) is retiring, all while he's standing on the sidelines chatting to teammates. This came on the heels of the team putting out the typical PR stuff that they hoped he'd be back to start the season. Now that we've had some time to digest it, this is honestly one of the most bizarre stories in the history of sports given the way it played out. Colts fans at the game were surrounded by fellow Colts fans and together they had a hard time digesting the shocking news. So they booed, which is what fans do when they are upset about something.

            Like hoosierguy said, no one in the NFL is making any money at all if it's not for the fans. People pay very real money for these expensive tickets.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-25-2019, 10:19 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Iím over it. At least the effing drama is done with now. The Colts can move forward with clarity and purpose. In Ballard We Trust. He completely turned around the roster in a couple of years. He has the cap space and draft capital to get a decent QB. Maybe not for this season but certainly in the offseason. Brissett isnít very good based on what he has shown in camp and preseason. The team and fans are just going to have to take their lumps for the next four months.

              Comment


              • #97
                So now that itís all over, we can answer the question of whether the Colts made the right decision by cutting Manning or not. Itís a road that Iím sure a lot of people would rather not go down, but it has to be talked about now that Luckís Indy career is over.

                Wirh the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think itís a no-brainer that we made a monumental mistake by cutting Manning. Luck had a few really good years, but his Colts legacy is drastically overshadowed by the what ifís.

                It would have been fun to see what could have happened if we traded the Luck pick for a haul of assets that could help Manning. At least we could have seen Manning return to form in front of the cheering Indy crowd. At least we probably would have made a Super Bowl because Manning was just that great. At least there wouldnít be awkwardness between the franchise and Manning. At least Manning would have then played his whole career in Indy. I would have absolutely rather gone down that road than what we had with Luck, which was some really good early success followed by mostly injury disappointment, then a WTF retirement after a phenomenal comeback season.

                Fair to say that the Colts made a giant mistake cutting Manning and I really donít see how anyone can make a coherent argument otherwise. Itís 20/20 hindsight, but thatís what sports message board analysis is.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Manning would have never had the success he did in Denver with Colts under Ryan Grigson and Chuck Pagano. Irsay has said Manningís cap hit was too high for the team to be able to absorb without conducting a fire sale of the roster. It was just a ****** situation all around. The real mistake was hiring a **** poor GM and coach.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Somewhere in America in an RV, Ol Blu is laughing his *** off right now. That mother ****er.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      So now that itís all over, we can answer the question of whether the Colts made the right decision by cutting Manning or not. Itís a road that Iím sure a lot of people would rather not go down, but it has to be talked about now that Luckís Indy career is over.

                      Wirh the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think itís a no-brainer that we made a monumental mistake by cutting Manning. Luck had a few really good years, but his Colts legacy is drastically overshadowed by the what ifís.

                      It would have been fun to see what could have happened if we traded the Luck pick for a haul of assets that could help Manning. At least we could have seen Manning return to form in front of the cheering Indy crowd. At least we probably would have made a Super Bowl because Manning was just that great. At least there wouldnít be awkwardness between the franchise and Manning. At least Manning would have then played his whole career in Indy. I would have absolutely rather gone down that road than what we had with Luck, which was some really good early success followed by mostly injury disappointment, then a WTF retirement after a phenomenal comeback season.

                      Fair to say that the Colts made a giant mistake cutting Manning and I really donít see how anyone can make a coherent argument otherwise. Itís 20/20 hindsight, but thatís what sports message board analysis is.
                      The coherent argument is that the cupboard was bare. If Manning had stuck around for those three years, he would have been playing on a bad team. He and Reggie probably would have made the playoffs most if not all of the remaining years, but it would have been like Marinoís last few years, wildcard round losses every time. It would have been nice to have Peyton retire as a Colt, but it is what it is.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                        The coherent argument is that the cupboard was bare. If Manning had stuck around for those three years, he would have been playing on a bad team. He and Reggie probably would have made the playoffs most if not all of the remaining years, but it would have been like Marinoís last few years, wildcard round losses every time. It would have been nice to have Peyton retire as a Colt, but it is what it is.
                        But the wildcard is what could the Colts have received for that super hyped Luck pick? Probably a kingís random.

                        Comment


                        • Retire that man's jersey. Still can't believe this is happening.

                          Luck lived up to all the hype for me. He is the real deal.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                            Somewhere in America in an RV, Ol Blu is laughing his *** off right now. That mother ****er.

                            Why? RG3 was a bust

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post


                              Why? RG3 was a bust
                              Yeah but Manning won an MVP in Denver and made two Super Bowls.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post
                                I'm sitting here watching videos of Chad Kelly, actually working myself into excitement. He seems to be a douche bag, but a talented douche bag with higher upside than Jacoby Brissett.

                                Watch this video and tell me you're not even a little bit excited about the kid.
                                Even if Chad is better, there is a 0% likelihood of him starting. The lockerroom is so clearly on Jacoby's side, it'd never happen.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X