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

2021 Non-Colts thread

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

  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Tough not to like this Bengals team and Burrow. I hope they win it all.

    Cincy D completely shutdown KC in the second half. Mahomes made quite a few mistakes.

    I was wrong about the Stafford trade - obviously that worked out great. That result might have been completely different if SF comes up with that gimme interception though.

    It will be tough for Cincy against that Rams front line. I they can do it though.

    Leave a comment:


  • D-BONE
    replied
    The Jimmy G pick on the last SF possession was carbon copy Wentz. Except Wentz will pull that readily in any game situation. Jimmy G was in true desperation mode at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Think - the Colts won in San Francisco. Imagine if these teams played right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    While I assume the betting money is on the Rams... History, karma, and nostalgia might have something to say about ANOTHER Bengals vs 49ers SB rematch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    I hope he keeps playing. I like watching him play and don’t want to see him retire until he’s on fumes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    PatsFootballTalk saying nothing confirmed yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    ^^ I guess the 'first reported by' is a badge of honor or something.

    To me - all the sports reporters are just guys that weren't good enough to play in highschool and this is their way to hang around the game. And it seems like they're all just suck-ups to the players. Afraid to get any of them pissed.

    ANYWAY - kudos to Brady. Incredible career.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    I get that breaking news is big business for sports reporters, but I wish they would let an athlete like Brady just announce it on his own terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    https://www.masslive.com/patriots/20...azy-house.html

    Brown said Bruce Arians’ assertion that he wanted more targets at halftime is a “flat out lie” and that the Buccaneers medical staff knew about his ankle issue. He’s also claims the team wanted him to get mental health treatment and wasn’t happy about it.

    “These guys at Tampa Bay Bucs tried to make an agreement with me to give me $200,000 to go to the crazy house so these guys could look like they know what they’re talking about,” Brown said.

    Burstyn then added some clarification.

    “The offer was Antonio would basically sit on the sidelines, go on some list and commit himself to some form of intensive mental health treatment,” Burstyn said. “And we were specifically told, in writing, by the general manager (Jason Licht), twice, ‘Don’t spin this any other way.’”

    Gumbel then asked Brown if he believes he needs mental help of any kind.

    “I have mental wealth, man,” Brown replied. “I know a lot of people may not understand me or know how I look at things or don’t know how I react emotionally to things. But that’s not for them to understand me. I’ve got a beautiful family, kids, and people all across the world that look up to me. There’s no reason I’m in this position at this point.”

    Brown and Burstyn also said they’re considering suing the Buccaneers for defamation.

    “A whole lotta money. A whole lot,” Brown said. “It’s totally disrespect, man. Mental health is an important key in the world, so to drag people along and play on people’s mental health it’s unfair and unfortunate.”
    Well, talk about making the wrong case for yourself...
    To the best of my knowledge, Tampa Bay didn't release anything to the public about AB's mental health or in particular wanting to pay for him to get treatment. So, it's hard to spin that as a way to discredit him... Especially when he and his atty are the ones who brought it up. And more importantly, considering the way he left the team in such a circus fashion. I suppose it could be the part about saying he wanted catches to meet some contract goal, and that that is a lie to discredit him (he's claiming). But that's still a reach. And suggesting he get mental health help (and footing the bill for him) isn't exactly sounding like Tampa Bay doing him dirty.
    I mean, he could've at least walked off without the dramatics. Down the sideline, around the endzone, uniform still on, no gestures to the fans... etc... That might've been questionable, but he made it a circus.

    So, he actually set himself up for questions about his mental health. Especially, since there were already questions.

    Who doesn't wonder about that dirty hit he took against Cincy at this point?

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    ^^ Saw that too.

    He doesn't have a QB. Saints aren't doing anything for the near future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Sean Payton leaving the Saints? That's what I'm seeing... not sure if it's confirmed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    The Chiefs just barely got in position to kick that. A few seconds going off the clock would have been brutal for KC, even if they had the extra yardage. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and you don’t want them to return it for a TD. But imagine if 4 extra seconds ticked off.

    Amazing finish. It will be interesting to see how Burrow does against that KC secondary. They looked absolutely abysmal at the end of the game (like the defender tripping over himself to give Buffalo the wide open TD on 4th and 13).

    This result was all about the coin toss. I think Buffalo almost certainly gets a TD if they win the toss.

    I feel bad for Allen and Buffalo’s tortured fan base.

    Like I’ve said before, at least we have that one modern championship that we can cling to. Look at what some of these fanbases suffer through.
    Unless Burrows, Allen, or Mahomes decide to retire at age 30, the Colts' championship isn't going to feel so 'modern' pretty soon. It's closing in on 20 years ago...

    I'm going ahead and elevating Burrows to that status... though whether he's really ready for the AFCCG is yet to be seen. But, any team getting to the SB, likely will be facing one or more of those QB's to do it for the next few years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    OT rules are a hot topic on social media today...

    One of my favorite (sarcasm) arguments for the current rules are that defense is a part of the game and you have to be able to stop the other team. If you can't, you don't deserve to win.

    Well, defense doesn't 'win' every down. So that's the first thing. You could have a great defense and still lose in sudden death if your make a bad defensive call, or the QB miraculously escapes containment and makes something happen. A WR grabs a well-defended tipped pass...

    But even that stuff misses another angle of that argument-
    KC didn't have to play defense. It's hard to see an argument for defense being half the game, if the winning team didn't have to play defense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    The Chiefs just barely got in position to kick that. A few seconds going off the clock would have been brutal for KC, even if they had the extra yardage. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and you don’t want them to return it for a TD. But imagine if 4 extra seconds ticked off.

    Amazing finish. It will be interesting to see how Burrow does against that KC secondary. They looked absolutely abysmal at the end of the game (like the defender tripping over himself to give Buffalo the wide open TD on 4th and 13).

    This result was all about the coin toss. I think Buffalo almost certainly gets a TD if they win the toss.

    I feel bad for Allen and Buffalo’s tortured fan base.

    Like I’ve said before, at least we have that one modern championship that we can cling to. Look at what some of these fanbases suffer through.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Exciting game but Buffalo’s defensive collapse was truly shameful, especially at the end of the 4th. Also, as Romo said, Buffalo should have forced KC to return the kick to eat the clock up. Historic meltdown. KC’s secondary completely collapsed at the end of the well. Bills probably would have scored a touchdown if they won the toss.

    Exciting finish and both QB’s were phenomenal, but both defenses were absolutely abysmal with how open receivers were getting. One reason I love the NFL is that it’s usually much tougher to score at the end of a game like that. This was like a college game with the back and forth scoring.
    I think that falls into the "Foul or let the other team get off a 3?" when you're leading by 3.
    The analytics say 'foul', but you're always worried about them hit one FT, missing the second on purpose, getting the rebound and the ball kicked out for a 3 to win.

    The Bills had the option of kicking it short of the goal line to force a return, which could've been better than the 25 yard line, with an outside shot of a runback even. Or could've led to a penalty. Or they could've played perfectly and pinned KC back.
    Or a squib kick to burn some clock, but almost certainly let them get to start beyond the 25 yard line, and a penalty was still possible, as was a runback.

    And there's always the wild multiple laterals thing that rarely works, but see "Music City Miracle".

    All of these filtered into the fact KC had timeouts IIRC, and Mahomes. If your opponent was Wentz where a bonehead play is not only possible, but probable, these type of things factor into the equation. Maybe even more than they should. The Bills obviously feared Mahomes and the KC offense. And they feared a runback. They opted for the guaranteed starting of the KC offense on the 25 yard line, taking all of the other possibilities, including a penalty off the table, and 13 seconds on the clock. And that STILL was enough time for Mahomes and the KC offense to cover the distance they needed.

    And we'll never know, but maybe the kicker was supposed to drop it short of the goal line and didn't do it, making all of this speculation a moot point.

    In hindsight, the squib kick, or kicking it short of the goal line sounds like the smarter play. But, had there been a big return, or a silly penalty tacking 15 yards onto the play... it could've given Mahomes great starting position, even if it did give them less time. Of course that takes a mistake. Play it perfectly, don't let your emotions get your best of you, and hope that's enough.

    I think the part that makes this difficult is the fear of Mahomes, Reid, and the KC offense. You're playing chess at this point and trying to not make the call that makes you lose. The truth is, how many teams are going to start on the 25 yard line, with 13 secs, and get into makeable distance for a FG? Not just a miracle kick... but a kick you expect the kicker to make?

    It was a fun game to watch.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X