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

New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

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

  • #61
    Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

    ...Brady is also doing the same stuff that Pats fans used to rag on Peyton for. Peyton has been (in the past) accused of always throwing TD's when in the redzone, but that pass Brady threw to Brady on first down from like half a yard away from the endzone seemed like what Pats fans a few years ago would have called 'statpadding'...

    Also, we didn't run up the score during Peyton's year. He sat out a bunch of 4th quarters.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

      I have little sympathy when someone complains of the score being "run up" in professional sports. This is the pros. This isn't a big high school running it up on a small school with a far less talented team. This isn't a division 1 powerhouse running the score up on a d2 team.. This is the NFL. Hypothetically, they should all be of equal talent. The Cowboys are supposed to be good. If they don't like it, then they should have stopped the Patriots there.

      And I'm a Colts fan who doesn't like the Pats at all.

      I think everyone throughout the course of their sportsfandom has been on both sides of a team running up the score. Isn't it fair to say that the Pacers ran the score up on the Blazers in 1998 when they DOUBLED their points?(124-59) The Pacers weren't a classless team for that. Portland should have done something about it. There should never be any mercy in professional sports, that is reserved for uneven situations in high school or college when you're trying not to hurt someone's feelings.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-14-2007, 11:41 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

        Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
        Interesting...

        Wk 1: Loss to Pats - Doubt we did then.
        Wk 2 & 3: Two wins by 14 points, late touchdowns clinched wins but you can hardly call them running up the score
        Wk 4: 7 point win
        Wk 5: Close to being the first you described but yet the late TD was scored by the defense
        Wk 6: Bye
        Wk 7-8: Two losses, I doubt we did then...
        Wk 9: Last second field goal to win the game.
        Wk 10: Close to being what you described, but the only TD scored in the fourth was by the defense.
        Wk 11: No touchdowns in the fourth.
        Wk 12: No touchdowns in the fourth. Gasp, even Sorgi played.
        Wk 13: Might have an argument here, with a TD at the beginning of the fourth and a late field goal.
        Wk 14: No touchdowns in the second half.
        Wk 15: No points in the fourth quarter, not that we could run up the score against the Ravens.
        Wk 16: Comeback win in OT.
        Wk 17: Throwaway game to the Broncos.

        Where are these numerous times that you speak of?
        Uhh, from what I remember, the Colts had many of their weaker opponents beaten by half time. Simply going back and looking at the 4th quarter TDs thrown isn't a very accurate way of determining whether or not Manning padded his stats (he did). Either way, thats beside the point. I hope Brady crushes his TD record and better yet, I hope the Pats crush the Colts on November 4th.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

          Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
          OMG Super Bowl Preview!!!!!!!
          Well, the game sucked like most Super Bowl games do so I guess they had that part right.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

            I'll be on the lookout for all of those 3rd quarter instances of running up the score.....

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

              Originally posted by Mal View Post
              I'll be on the lookout for all of those 3rd quarter instances of running up the score.....


              Didn't think that was possible.
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #67
                Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                I'll be on the lookout for all of those 3rd quarter instances of running up the score.....
                No kidding obviously different definitions of running up the score. Generally though going in for another TD when you are already up by two scores with 20 seconds remaining seems a little excessive.


                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                  Originally posted by Moses View Post
                  Uhh, from what I remember, the Colts had many of their weaker opponents beaten by half time.
                  They had four in hindsight. It's ridiculous to suggest a football team to stop scoring immediately after halftime, because there is a chance the other team could start scoring. For example, the Patriots did have the Colts 'beat' last January.

                  Simply going back and looking at the 4th quarter TDs thrown isn't a very accurate way of determining whether or not Manning padded his stats
                  Actually yes it is, because it would be padding stats by almost everyone's standards if Peyton was throwing touchdowns late in the fourth quarter leading by thirty points.

                  (he did)
                  What's your proof? You're honestly going to have to do better than your uhhhh memory.

                  Either way, thats beside the point.
                  You're the one that brought the point up in the first place, because it somehow nullifies what the Pats do, have done, and will do.

                  I hope Brady crushes his TD record and better yet, I hope the Pats crush the Colts on November 4th.
                  I hope Brady does not crush his TD record and better yet, I hope the Colts crush the Pats on November 4th.
                  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


                  • #69
                    Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                    Lost in the shuffle here is the reality that New England beat an undefeated contender on their home field while still being banged up by injuries.

                    I'm sorry, guys, but all I have to go on is what I've seen, and I could be wrong (Nov. 4th will be a hell of a game), but New England is simply a better team than Indianapolis.

                    I see the two offenses as being comparable, but New England's D is superior. The other thing I don't think you guys are really looking at is that despite all these blowouts of other teams, New England hasn't even had to uncork Donte Stallworth yet. He's a go-to number one options on 80% of the teams in the league, and he's been putting up mediocre numbers simply because he hasn't been needed, or Moss has been so wide open there was no point in throwing to him.

                    Point being, even when defenses do whatever they need to do, that offense isn't going to slow down one bit, and the defense is going to get a little better than it is right now. The Colts will get a little better on D due to learning on the field, because the D is young, but all in all, the Colts beating New England would be an upset, based on what I've seen so far.

                    It doesn't make the Colts a bad team, and it doesn't make them incapable of winning another Super Bowl. But if I were gambling my life on a best of 7, I'd put my money on the Pats. Again, on the bright side, there's still plenty of season left for Randy Moss to turn into locker room cancer, or someone to get a major injury. Even if not, the Colts still have a chance.

                    They're just simply not the better team this year like they were last year. Picking up Adalius Thomas, Randy Moss, and Donte Stallworth changes the picture a bit. If I were a Colts fan, I'd focus on winning my division, because there's not a bad team in that entire division this year.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                      Congrats to NE first of all - they ARE very good.

                      But I really get sick of media hype. Chris Collingsworth at halftime last night was ridiculous - he anointed NE as the best team ever. Brady's already gotten the MVP, there's never been a team with this many weapons, etc.

                      Huh? It's only 6 games. Their defense is unimpressive at best - heck, Dallas scored 27 on them after completely sleepwalking through the 1st quarter. Right now they don't have a running game. And I don't see the weapons as being more than what Dan Marino had in Miami or even what Peyton had when Edge, Harrison, Wayne, Stokely and Clark were all healthy (or what they may have now with Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Addai and if Gonzales gets past his rookie-itis later this season).

                      Yesterday confirmed what we already knew. NE is very good. Dallas is good but not in their class yet (didn't everyone know the best in the NFC wasn't as good as the best in the AFC before the season started?).

                      The real funny thing is during the game there were comments that NE had thrown away the defend-run for a title handbook and decided that winning titles like the Colts - all offense, all the time - was the way to go. Convenient of them to forget that the reason the Colts won the SB was that for a 4-game stretch their defense played like a championship defense and they controlled the ball - they don't win vs KC or Baltimore if it wasn't for that and they were able to run at will late in the NE and Chicago games. All those pass-happy teams didn't win a single title but the one that controlled tempo and played D did.

                      The sports media should be covering teeny-bopper bubble-gum flash-in-the-pan "bands" (I use quotes because once upon a time bands played instruments). Then they can find a new darling every few months.

                      Or politics.

                      None of this is NE's fault but it's still ridiculous.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                        Sorry, I do not agree on the NE defense being all that good, viewing the TD's Dallas made certainly not.

                        Dallas gave tis game away, perhaps NE helped them do that, but the protection was bad, defense sloppy and let's not start on penalty situations.

                        I will admit NE is a good team, likely on par with the Colts, but up and untill the Superbowl, they will have to prove they are better, in defeating the Colts.

                        To bad it cant be the SB game though.
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          Lost in the shuffle here is the reality that New England beat an undefeated contender on their home field while still being banged up by injuries.

                          I'm sorry, guys, but all I have to go on is what I've seen, and I could be wrong (Nov. 4th will be a hell of a game), but New England is simply a better team than Indianapolis.

                          I see the two offenses as being comparable, but New England's D is superior. The other thing I don't think you guys are really looking at is that despite all these blowouts of other teams, New England hasn't even had to uncork Donte Stallworth yet. He's a go-to number one options on 80% of the teams in the league, and he's been putting up mediocre numbers simply because he hasn't been needed, or Moss has been so wide open there was no point in throwing to him.

                          Point being, even when defenses do whatever they need to do, that offense isn't going to slow down one bit, and the defense is going to get a little better than it is right now. The Colts will get a little better on D due to learning on the field, because the D is young, but all in all, the Colts beating New England would be an upset, based on what I've seen so far.

                          It doesn't make the Colts a bad team, and it doesn't make them incapable of winning another Super Bowl. But if I were gambling my life on a best of 7, I'd put my money on the Pats. Again, on the bright side, there's still plenty of season left for Randy Moss to turn into locker room cancer, or someone to get a major injury. Even if not, the Colts still have a chance.

                          They're just simply not the better team this year like they were last year. Picking up Adalius Thomas, Randy Moss, and Donte Stallworth changes the picture a bit. If I were a Colts fan, I'd focus on winning my division, because there's not a bad team in that entire division this year.
                          I wholly disagree with this. Dallas had no problem scoring on NE*, they just simply could not stop NE*'s offense. Romo was picking apart NE*'s defense with short pass plays, the same kind that a certain championship QB specializes in.

                          I have yet to see much of a running game for the Pats.* So, I say, fall back on NE*'s receivers and/or put pressure on Brady* and force them to beat you with their running game.

                          NE* can't stop the Colts' offense. The question that remains is, can the Colts stop NE*'s offense?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                            Yeah, I don't think their D is all that great, either. It's not bad, but it's not like they're a powerhouse on both sides of the ball, like some media loons will have you think. I think the Colts and Pats have pretty similar O's and D's, really. Both can score whenever they want, and both have defenses that are probably just 'good.'

                            IMO, we've got the edge (sort of) in that we aren't relying on Moss and Stallworth for an entire season + postseason. If something happens w/ either of them, then NE is simply getting what they asked for.

                            And Brady isn't getting the record. His last 7 games are in the cold.
                            Last edited by SoupIsGood; 10-15-2007, 10:39 AM.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                              Oh, and the suggestion that the Colts should have stopped scoring after halftime is pretty crazy. I don't care what you say, if it's still the 3rd quarter it's too early to pack it in. I mean there's being classy and not rubbing it in, and there's being dumb and leaving your opponent too much time.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                                All week I was telling my co-workers that Dallas simply was not in the same class as the Pats and Colts, or even San Diego. I told them all that I thought New England would absolutely crush Dallas. One of them bet me lunch (GT South's BBQ. Excellent). I gave him Dallas and TWO touchdowns. I gave Dallas 14 points on their own field. The rest of the guys thought I was crazy, but the last thing I told them all before leaving work Friday was that there was no way I'd be losing this bet. Not only did I not lose the bet but I could have given Dallas two TD's and two FG's and still won.

                                When the Pats and Colts play, it's gonna be about which defense decides to step it up a notch, because both of these offenses will score a TON.

                                And Moses, you need to just take the loss on claiming the Colts ran up all of those scores. They absolutely did not, and I don't care which definition you use. When Peyton and the starters sit out the 4th quarter, and the defenses are scoring the only TD's, you're just plain wrong. Take it like a man and admit that you made a stupid statement that you have no hope of backing up no matter how long you try to talk about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X