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

Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

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

  • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

    Originally posted by George Foreman View Post
    While we did not win, atleast out backups are getting used to actually playing in real games and they've performed pretty well, so that may be a win in some peoples books. Also I really doubt that our entire team will remain this battered for the rest of the season(atleast I hope not).
    that was snarky commentary on my part, not a serious point.
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

      Besides the posters that declared this game over within 2 minutes of the first quarter.

      Some of the better comments were speaking of Peyton's decline and Adam being worthless since we signed him.

      We don't beat the Ravens last year if we didn't have Adam, so let's cool it with throwing everyone under the bus.
      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

        After all the injuries and still being able to have a chance to win, I'm not upset with the loss, although AV should have made the kick.

        We didn't quit and held on. Our defense was S-O-L-I-D.

        Although I'm concerned about Dwight.

        This game shows what a Championship team is.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
        press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

        Comment


        • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

          Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
          Besides the posters that declared this game over within 2 minutes of the first quarter...
          You'd think people would learn by now, especially after last season.

          Comment


          • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

            Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
            I don't think Peyton is any worse than he was a few seasons ago. But what is different is 1) Tarik Glen retiring 2) Tarik Glen's solid replacement being hurt 3) A HOF receiver (who caught 15 of his 49 TD passes) going down and 4) other weapons being out at various points

            Manning had Glenn protect him his entire career. And I agree with Soup that last season was Manning's best season, and that has nothing to do with the Super Bowl. Tarik leaving was a huge blow. Ugoh has been very good, but his backup isn't very good. By the end of the night, we were on Ugoh's backup's backup. You can't expect Peyton to be as solid with his left tackle of a decade retires, and his replacement's backup is protecting him.

            Harrison being out is huge too. Essentially, Harrison being out means we really lose the Wayne/Harrison punch, because all the attention is going on Reggie. Even if Harrison isn't having a huge day, he is always the first guy the opposing defense worries about. No Clark last night either.

            When Manning looked so great in 2004, he had Wayne and Harrison who put up the best numbers of their career, a Brandon Stokley in the best season of his career, and a solid Dallas Clark. And he was being protected game in and game out by Tarik Glenn. Not Tarik Glenn's replacement's backup's backup. Now, those obviously benefited a great deal from Manning. But he benefited alot from then too.

            Just because Manning isn't putting up 49 touchdowns doesn't mean that he's gone downhill at all. The Colts have just played a different style these past couple of seasons. I think a better one.
            This is what makes me so squeamish about building a team around offense. Regardless, you have to have a good offensive line to be effective. Then, it's a matter of deciding whether you're going to invest money in the RB with an average 4 year shelf life or paying out money for a QB and three receivers, because investing in one without the others is wasted money. Either way, kinda a risky proposition.

            It seems like the better investment is on defense, because other than the Line, the defensive player's talent can't be completely negated by the other players on defense. Less of a "chain is only as strong as the weakest link" situation.

            As for this game in particular, I flipped it off at halftime, because I had to go to work, and at the time, I figured the Colts had no shot. Obviously they did a great job coming back, and Vinatieri is the best kicker in the league, but he's not a robot.

            I think the Colts will win against the Chiefs, as much as it hurts to say it, but you should tone down the bravado and bluster thinking you're going to hobble in and crush us. Larry Johnson is out, and that really does hurt the offense, but Indy's got a ton of injuries, and we do hold a win over San Diego. I think it's a Colts win due to home field, but I also think it'll be a very close game.

            EDIT: I'd also like to express my opinions of those who say Wayne is as good as Marvin Harrison, or as I've heard a couple people say, "better than Marvin". Idiots, one and all. Reggie's a great receiver, and most teams would be happy to have him as a 1st option. But he basically disappeared when double covered, and yet Marvin was burning double coverage for 70 yard TDs before Wayne showed up. Harrison is, in my opinion, a top 10, maybe top 5 all-time receiver. People tend to forget how great he is until he misses a few games.
            Last edited by Eindar; 11-13-2007, 04:22 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
              But he basically disappeared when double covered,


              I don't think it's a stretch to say Reggie is probably as good as Marvin right now.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

                Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post


                I don't think it's a stretch to say Reggie is probably as good as Marvin right now.
                Well, I guess I can buy that Wayne is almost as good as Marvin *right now*. But I've heard people say that Reggie Wayne is better than Marvin *right now*, which is ludicrous, and I've heard a smaller amount of people say he's as good as Marvin *in his prime*.

                Sorry for the confusion

                Comment


                • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

                  The whole loss is AV's fault and I'm not even playing.

                  Yes, Peyton Manning threw 6 interceptions, but he also put us in a position where it should have been EASY for us to win the game at the end. If AV missed a 63 yard field goal instead of a 29 yard one or whatever, my opinion would be different.

                  'nuff said.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    The whole loss is AV's fault and I'm not even playing.

                    Yes, Peyton Manning threw 6 interceptions, but he also put us in a position where it should have been EASY for us to win the game at the end. If AV missed a 63 yard field goal instead of a 29 yard one or whatever, my opinion would be different.

                    'nuff said.
                    yes adam should have made the one at the 29. we could have won the game.

                    but, why were we in a position to need a win on a last chance field goal anyway?

                    5ints from peyton (the 6th came later)
                    a previous missed FG attempt
                    giving up TWO TOUCHDOWNS on kick/punt returns

                    the last point is the biggest.

                    our defense held the team to 9 points. our special teams gave up 13 points just by being terrible. had that not happened it wouldn't matter that AV missed any of those FGs. the special teams gave up 13pts before rivers could complete a pass.

                    this isn't on AV. this isn't on peyton. this isn't on dungy's time out.

                    this was a colts loss.

                    and despite ALL of those mistakes and playing with a JV squad we had a chance to win the game.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indianapolis at San Diego - Sunday Night Football - 11/11/07

                      Manning shows toughness in Colts' loss to Chargers
                      Dr. Z, SI.com

                      One summer, maybe 20 years ago, I was vacationing with my family, and on one particular lazy afternoon I was sitting around outside the cottage we were renting, watching some ants. They were engaged in the project of dragging the body of a beetle back to their nest or wherever they lived.

                      It was like a military precision operation. Some dragged it until they got tired, then they gave way and others took over, while still others scouted the terrain ahead. This would certainly be a fine feast for their colony. It was beautifully organized.

                      I don't know what devil possessed me to do it, but all of a sudden I lifted the beetle from their midst. They went nuts, poor little things, running about in disarray, bumping into each other, tracking, backtracking, wandering off in confusion. I felt bad about it and restored the beetle to its rightful place, but it took them about two minutes before they settled down and resumed their duties.

                      Many of them never got over it and suffered lingering psychiatric problems. Some were profoundly affected by the experience, claiming they had personally seen the Hand of God. They became deeply religious. As for me, I recalled the whole scene Sunday night when I watched the Colts lose to the Chargers.

                      Peyton Manning, when he has his full colony of workers, is the closest thing to a drillmaster you will see on a football field. The operation is meticulously organized. But start removing elements from it and the drill can break down. And take away as many key portions of it as were removed Sunday night and you get, well, six interceptions.

                      The Colts went into the San Diego game with only 17 offensive players in uniform. Two went down during the game. Two key receivers, Marvin Harrison and Dallas Clark, were missing. Their top draft choice, AnthonyGonzalez, who was supposed to be in the mix somewhere, also was out of action. They were left with Reggie Wayne and back-ups, including a street free agent activated in October named Craphonso Thorpe.

                      They fell behind, 23-0. I thought the result would be like one of those New England Patriot adding machine things, except that Norv Turner doesn't run up scores. Then the beetle was returned and remarkably, things settled into some form of normalcy. And even with strange numbers on the uniforms of Manning's receivers, the Colts drove when they had to, scored, put points on the board, brought it back to 23-21 and took it down to the shadow of the Chargers' goal, where a missed 29-yard field goal did them in.

                      It was an amazing example of battlefield command, of somehow mustering a shattered army. But that's what Peyton is so good at, fighting the odds. I've seen him take some ferocious beatings, while running his show. For some reason teams that are hesitant to blitz other quarterbacks seem to feel it's the best strategy against him. I saw the Ravens, two years in a row, throw all sorts of exotic pressure packages at him, but he hung in -- it seemed as if almost every pass he threw was off his back foot -- and by the third quarter he had worn them out.

                      Some of the greatest games I've seen him have were under the most severe duress, and maybe his numbers weren't the best those times, but the memories he left were the most lingering. And looking back on the great quarterback performances that come to mind, the ones that are most indelibly etched are the ones that involved the most severe conditions.

                      A quarterback who stands tall in the pocket, facing a minimal rush, throwing to an all star cast of receivers is a pretty picture, but there's nothing about it that reaches me on an emotional level. But the guy who somehow manages to pull one out when the weather is bad and his offense is banged up and the other team is smelling blood -- well, that's what it's all about, I feel.

                      Bill Walsh used to run an exercise for his quarterbacks called the bad situation drill, which called for them to throw passes under all manner of discomfort. It seemed like a helter skelter type of thing, but every situation was carefully rehearsed. Joe Montana credited it for the play that beat Dallas on the way to the Niners' first Super Bowl, running to his right and just before going of bounds, lofting one to Dwight Clark for the winning score. But I never saw him put it to better use than in a game I covered in Philly in 1989.

                      Buddy Ryan sacrificed all principles of sound coverage to bring a monster blitz package at Montana. The night before he told me, "If he finishes the game, then I haven't done my job."

                      Well, Montana finished it -- just barely -- but it was close. The Eagles sacked him eight times and sent him to the sidelines twice. But what they paid for in unsound coverage produced 38 points and 428 yards and five TDs for Montana -- and a 10-point 49ers victory. Watching that game was like watching a morality play, good against evil, with both sides taking some serious hits.

                      A lot of the greatest performances I've watched didn't involve winning at all, and those yahoos who put some resonance into their voices and proclaim, "Without the victory, it doesn't mean a thing," don't really understand that a certain nobility can also accompany hopeless causes.

                      The finest game I ever saw John Elway have was in his junior year at Stanford. They were badly outmanned against Purdue, which seemed to get rushers in on him on every play. That was the first time I saw the miracles Elway could work on the dead run, the depth and accuracy he could get on his throws while he was in full flight. Stanford lost, but Elway put a scare into the Boilers. I don't remember how many yards he threw for ... over 400, I'm sure ... but I do remember seeing the Purdue players lining up to shake his hand after it was over.

                      Once I ran into Fran Tarkenton when I was covering a playoff game, after he had retired. We were talking about his career with the Giants and some of the goofy stuff that happened there. I told him that he might think I was nuts, but the best game I ever saw him have was against the Cowboys in 1971.

                      Dallas would go on to be the Super Bowl champ that year. It was one of the greatest Cowboys teams in history, Roger Staubach and Duane Thomas and the Doomsday Defense at its toughest. The Giants were tied for the worst team in the NFC at 4-10. The runners Tarkenton had in his backfield that Monday night in Dallas were Bobby Duhon and Junior Coffey. His receivers were Clifton McNeil, Rich Houston and Don Herrmann from Waynesburg State. And yet this ragtag outfit took the Cowboys down to the wire, and the reason was Tarkenton. He ran, he threw on the move, he bought first downs through sheer force of will. Dallas ended up winning by seven. They should have won by 30.

                      So I told Tarkenton that was the best game I ever saw him play, and he nodded and said, "You know something? It's my favorite, too."

                      Well, I don't think that someday Peyton Manning, if he's sitting around with some old sportswriter, will classify that six interception night as one of his best. I wouldn't, either. It belongs in a different category, a different type of greatness, the ability to organize any group he ever finds himself on the field with into a striking force that at least can bring a tough game a heartbeat away from victory.

                      I'm sure it was one he'd like to forget. But for people such as me, with long memories, it was very special.

                      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...lts/index.html
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X