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

  • #91
    Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

    The entirety of Boston sports has just become one big Free Agent Town. Remember all those stories about the Patriot ethos and how the Patriot way was superior and they developed their own guys so well? They have become what they claimed to hate: The Yankees of football. Their GM's must not be able to draft anyone because now they are just admitting they can't win except by being the big market free spenders with guys like Roidney Harrison and Moss. Then even the guys like Welker that they bring in, who were previously mild-mannered, start acting like jerks.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Let's not forget the fact that Indy was on the one freaking yard line against Balt., when Peyton was set to break the record and the kneed the ball twice (I believe) to let the time run out.

      I remember one of the sideline reports grabbing Ray Lewis and asking him what his and Peyton's short convo at the end was about and to sum it up, he said he appreciated that Peyton didn't try to throw a meaningless TD just to break it. The media hyped up that game big time, knowing how good Balts D was and the fact that the Colts were orginally from Balt. It was the "wouldn't it be cool if he did it there?" story once people started putting the numbers and projecting when he would do it.

      If you think that Dungy is classless, then you have zero clue about him and what he stands for. There is nothing remotely possible to twist to say that he's whatever negative name you want to throw at him. He's a very respectable man who's dealt with more adverisity in a season, and handled it as good as anyone ever could, than any other head coach outside of Andy Reid (and thats a maybe for him too).

      When you start supporting your opinions with actual facts, and not completely thinned out ones by all the stretching, then maybe you can say Peyton and Co. ran up the score during his TD season, but find some facts first.

      And PacerTom, I can only think of all those games that were subfreezing weather that Dan Marino played in. I bet those winters in Miami just get brutual.
      Peyton padded his stats and YOU KNOW IT!

      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • #93
        Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

        Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
        The entirety of Boston sports has just become one big Free Agent Town. Remember all those stories about the Patriot ethos and how the Patriot way was superior and they developed their own guys so well? They have become what they claimed to hate: The Yankees of football. Their GM's must not be able to draft anyone because now they are just admitting they can't win except by being the big market free spenders with guys like Roidney Harrison and Moss. Then even the guys like Welker that they bring in, who were previously mild-mannered, start acting like jerks.
        This is just sour grapes, and you know it. There are no "Yankees of football". Everyone is allowed to spend the same amount. Both the Patriots and the Colts have done a good job drafting the last few years. If anything, they should be praised for being able to compete while also being so far below the cap that they could go out and bring in 3 big names when they realized they were behind the Colts in terms of talent.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
          You run your 4th string running back off tackle and it's supposed to be some sinister thing? Dallas was calling their timeouts to hope to take over on downs and hope to get a hail Mary/onside kick/hail Mary. Obviously with only 20 seconds or so left that small hope was out the window, but when you are ahead in the game you are supposed to run the ball off tackle and it's up to the opposition to stop you.
          You're right that the end by itself isn't really that bad. Matt Giordano should have fell down aginst the Saints, but he ran that INT back for a touchdown against the Saints.

          However it does get annoying because it keeps fueling the "you guys are going to be sorry for catching us cheating" mode the Pats seem to be in.
          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


          • #95
            Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

            I wanna know how a team ranked seventh in rushing, without having Maroney for the most part can claim to have a lack of a running game...
            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


            • #96
              Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              What's with the whining and crying about legal playing conditions?
              Nobody is whining or crying about anything. I was pointing out that if individual records are your thing and you want to use stats to compare players, then you have to account also for playing conditions.

              That doesn't mean a great player in one place cannot be a great player in another place. Warren Moon was terrific up in Canada. He then put up amazing NFL numbers playing in Houston, on turf, in a dome, in a run-and-shoot system. Would his numbers have been as good if he played in Green Bay or New England? Doubtful. Would he still have been a great quarterback? Absolutely.

              If Tom Brady needs to throw 5 touchdowns to break a record, and it's 10 degrees with 20 mph winds in late December in Massachusetts, it would be tough for him. It would obviously be far easier on turf with 72C and no wind. But winning is the same everywhere, and that is what he cares about, not records or stats. I am sure that Peyton is the same way, and people who rely on just statistical analysis as the be-all-and-end-all of analyzing a player's ability just don't get it, and probably never will.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-16-2007, 11:58 AM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                Simmons article
                http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...tonblog/071015

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                  Originally posted by pacertom View Post

                  If Tom Brady needs to throw 5 touchdowns to break a record, and it's 10 degrees with 20 mph winds in late December in Massachusetts, it would be tough for him.
                  ... especially if he doesn't know what the D is gonna run ahead of time.



                  I just don't understand how you got to this discussion of stats from the asterisk thing. The * is for cheaters. You said your were sick of the * and brought up all this stuff about playing in domes and such. I'm not seeing where the two ideas connect.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                    Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                    ... especially if he doesn't know what the D is gonna run ahead of time.


                    I just don't understand how you got to this discussion of stats from the asterisk thing. The * is for cheaters. You said your were sick of the * and brought up all this stuff about playing in domes and such. I'm not seeing where the two ideas connect.
                    This is a joke. It's pretty clear the Patriots do not need the other teams signals to win games. You are just being stubborn if you think otherwise. You are also crazy if you think that other teams haven't been doing this for decades..not that it excuses the Pats for blatantly doing it. It was cheating..the Pats paid the price with a first rounder. With that said, everyone trying to discredit their 3 SBs for this is funny. Don't you think the NFL would have released more information after they had gotten ahold of all the Patriots scouting film if it was clear the Pats had been doing it in the past?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                      You run your 4th string running back off tackle and it's supposed to be some sinister thing? Dallas was calling their timeouts to hope to take over on downs and hope to get a hail Mary/onside kick/hail Mary. Obviously with only 20 seconds or so left that small hope was out the window, but when you are ahead in the game you are supposed to run the ball off tackle and it's up to the opposition to stop you.

                      This whole asterisk thing is really annoying but if you guys persist then I just have to say

                      Peyton's TD record* is probably safe since there is no dome-field weather advantage in New England.

                      *touchdown passes made, playing in 72 degree weather, on plastic, with no wind.

                      Of course, like the Pats and the NFL schedule this year, Peyton didn't have a lot of control over the fact that Indy chose to build a dome.
                      Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

                      So, let me get this straight. Cheating and taking performance enhancers (Rodney Harrison*) are just the same as playing surface.

                      Only in Pats la-la land.

                      Comment


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

                        Six games, and the Pats are something that's almost never seen in sports? If I were Simmons, I'd wait until at least like 10-0 to start going nuts like that. Oh well.

                        And the Cheaters vs The World attitude is pretty dumb, especially when the supposed animosity isn't that great: the collective media freaking loves the Pats. I'm not sure where Simmons is seeing this widespread hate.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Moses View Post
                          This is a joke.
                          Indeed, it was. That first part was just me having a little fun--I know it wasn't totally clear.

                          The * thing is overdone (I don't actually use it), but I'm never going to say that someone else shouldn't do it. And I think Pats fans should pretty much have to put up with it. If you're going to cheat, you earn that kind of treatment. I don't really care whether their previous SB were tainted or weren't tainted, so that whole argument is for somebody else to have fun with... personally, it seems like a waste of time.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                            The * is for cheaters.
                            The asterisk in sports began with Roger Maris. He cheated at nothing, but since he had 162 games to hit 61 home runs instead of 154 games like Babe Ruth, some nutjob decided to affix an asterisk to his record. Just because he played under the rules of the time, an in so doing gained a advantage for it (totally fairly).

                            So if you guys want to affix an asterisk to everything New England, I'll affix an asterisk to Peyton Manning's touchdown record* to show that many others never had the advantages of a 16 game season, turf, no wind, and 72 degrees.

                            Yeah it's silly, but so is it trying to dismiss the Patriots team based upon an overhyped "scandal" that is totally irrelevant to the performance of the current team. If you want to attach it to past Super Bowls, fine. I am just tired of seeing it. They admitted their mistake, took their penalties, and moved on.
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-16-2007, 01:48 PM.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


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

                              the updated Sagarin ratings are out.

                              Pats: 22nd strongest schedule in the league
                              Colts: 21st strongest schedule in the league

                              http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagar...terstitialskip

                              kind of interesting the rankings, and it shows that the #3 team (Dallas) is closer in rating to the #12 team than it is to the #2 team (Indy)

                              That is, it is the Pats & the Colts, then a big gap before just about everyone else.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-16-2007, 01:59 PM.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


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

                                I don't recognize Emitt Smith anymore as the all time leading rusher either. My God he played in Dallas in a Dome!

                                I think Farve is showing that weather isn't the big factor that everyone loves to bring up. Is it one? Most definately, but it gets overplayed IMHO.

                                I mean Peyton only went 25-38 for 247yds in a downpour of a Super Bowl. TD-INT you say? 1-1, just like he did in a dome against the Pats two weeks earlier.

                                What do you mean check the stats for the Balt game? Okay, he was 15-30 for 170yds with 0 TDs and 2INTs also played in that warm 72 degree weather with no wind.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X