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 New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

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

  • Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

    (6-3) Last week, the depleted Colts found a way to hold off the Bengals' late fourth quarter surge and came out with a win. Will the Colts be able to contend with New England with the possibility of another week without star players Austin Collie and Joesph Addai?

    (7-2) After being embarrassed by the Browns, the Patriots sent a message to the entire AFC by beating down the Steelers, and now look to send another message to the Colts. Does Brady vs Manning ever get old?

    Time: 4:15 PM ET

    Location: Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, MA

    Television:
    Super Bowl XLI Champions
    2000 Eastern Conference Champions





  • #2
    Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

    Depleted Colts vs. the similarly depleted Patriots.

    As of this report from last week, no team in the NFL has more players on injured reserve than the Patriots.
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...port.html?cat=

    Some of the Patriots out:

    #1 CB Leigh Bodden- out for the season
    top DE Ty Warren- out for the season
    starting RT Nick Kaczur- out for the season
    best receiving/blocking back Kevin Faulk- out for the season
    #1 RB Fred Taylor- out since week 3 (though this one is not a surprise at all)
    probowl kicker Gostkowski- out for the season
    starting safety Brandon McGowan- out for the season
    starting RG Neal- inactive for the Colts game
    backup DE Myron Pryor- inactive for the Colts game
    backups Josh Barrett, Bret Lockett, Darryl Richard, and Kade Weston- out for the season

    This doesn't minimize the Colts injury situation, it has been bad not only with a lot of players not on IR but also with guys not playing. Dallas Clark in particular was a huge part of their offense. Their situation gets about 100 time more publicity than other teams in a similar predicament, however.

    Players 43-53 on your roster are there for a reason, and both teams are playing A LOT of those guys and also a number of waiver wire pickups and undrafted free agents.
    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


    • #3
      Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

      Just win baby.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

        I'm really excited for this game.

        Go
        Super Bowl XLI Champions
        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

          Excited, but I just don't see the Colts winning this one as I stated in another post. I really hope they can go out there and prove me wrong.
          Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

            Yeah, but I think they can prove us wrong. I hope we are a little healthier this week.

            I want to see Addai/Hart and Collie.
            Super Bowl XLI Champions
            2000 Eastern Conference Champions




            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              Depleted Colts vs. the similarly depleted Patriots.

              As of this report from last week, no team in the NFL has more players on injured reserve than the Patriots.
              http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...port.html?cat=


              This doesn't minimize the Colts injury situation, it has been bad not only with a lot of players not on IR but also with guys not playing. Dallas Clark in particular was a huge part of their offense. Their situation gets about 100 time more publicity than other teams in a similar predicament, however.
              No doubt all teams have to deal with this, but I think what folks remember about the Colts is the backups to the starters are going down as well.

              Gonzalez and then Collie
              Sanders (not too unexpected) and then Bullitt
              Addai, (Brown was out until recent) and then Mike Hart (who became the legit 2).

              By the time you're having to pick up guys who were cut and not playing and then all the sudden starting you take notice.
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                We've had starters miss games at every single position except, QB, C, FS, and DE. I'd be surprised if any team comes close to that.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                  Hopefully the Colts can defend against this!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                    I think this will be a good game to watch. Hopefully the Colts can pull it out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      We've had starters miss games at every single position except, QB, C, FS, and DE. I'd be surprised if any team comes close to that.
                      The Patriots have had starters miss games at every single position except QB, C, LT, Nose T, and ILB.

                      Again, Pats have put more starters on IR, put more players on IR overall, have had more player games missed, had more key starters out for good (Clark, Gonzo, Sanders? and Bullitt vs. Warren, Gostkowski, Faulk, Bodden, McGowen and Kaczur.)

                      Yet on M&M this morning "The Colts are practically playing with their practice squad- it is amazing that they can compete".

                      Any guesses which way this discussion goes on the networks Sunday? I'm predicting it'll be "the Powerhouse Patriots against the Injury-Ravaged Colts." They will just marvel over how Peyton Manning is getting it done "all by himself" and then nod and laugh at their own jokes. They know the average Joe non-Patriots fan out there knows who Dallas Clark and Bob Sanders are and that they could not pick out key expected starters Ty Warren, Nick Kazcur, Leigh Bodden, Kevin Faulk, Brandon McGowen et. al. out of a lineup. Explaining that and actually educating the fans is harder to do than saying what people want to hear.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                        Can I see the player games missed stat? I'd be interested in seeing that. I'd be amazed if the Pats are actually at the top, I mean the Colts have had every receiver except Reggie Wayne miss a game at least.

                        Also, whatever they sell it as, this will be the healthiest the Colts have been in two or three weeks. I firmly expect to see Addai and Collie back in the lineup, and probably Brackett as well.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                          A poster on a Patriots board when through and counted games missed due to injury so far for Addai, Hart, Dallas Clark, Tamme, Anthony Gonzalez, Austin Collie, Bob Sanders, Melvin Bullitt, Jerruad Powers, Gary Brackett, and Pierre Garcon. He came up with 39 games missed so far. I don't know if it's accurate or not, and I know there have been other Colts injuries as well.

                          The same calculation for Ty Warren, Stephen Gostkowski, Leigh Bodden, Brandon McGowen, Nick Kaczur, Kevin Faulk, Fred Taylor, Stephen Neal and Patrick Chung adds up to a total of 53 games. I don't know if that number is accurate or not either, and I know there have also been other Patriot injuries as well.

                          The numbers may be off, I don't know. I do know that both teams have had injury issues and have overcome them to a certain extent.

                          One advantage the Patriots have is that many of their injured starters were in the final year of their contract and it just so happened that an eventual replacement was drafted just this year or last. They are learning on the job instead of in practice. Chung was going to replace McGowan eventually, but his time is now. Ditto Vollmer for Kaczur, McCourty for Bodden, Ben-Jarvis Green-Ellis for Taylor. The only players not replacable were Ty Warren and Kevin Faulk, but they have a committee replacing Warren and got lucky in finding Danny Woodhead on waivers to do most of what Faulk does. Belichick has never started more than 1 rookie on D and he starts 4. The rebuild was accelerated, but the rebuild had already been started. They have 23 1st or 2nd year players on the 53-man roster.

                          It is also fortunate for the Patriots that their injuries have been more spread out by position, unlike 2004 for example when 6 defensive backs were out for the year so the corners who played became a then-unproven draftee Asante Samuel, two waiver wire free agents (rookie UDFA Randall Gay, Earthwind Moreland), and a wide receiver (Troy Brown). It's still a wonder they won the SB. It sounds like the Colts are in a similar predicament with both of the safety positions, with starters AND backups injured.

                          Overall I can't view Peyton as having too much of a disadvantage on offense since the top three wide receivers you expected to be there will indeed be there: Wayne, Garcon, and Collie (probably). Dallas Clark is a huge loss, obviously. Tamme I think is expected to play and he is at least adequate though. I don't know the health of Addai, Hart, and Brown. I can't say they were a part of the offense to fear, though, give their production last year. If you have two of them playing I would think that it represents the Colts running game as you expected it to be.

                          This game will be interesting for sure. Both teams will downgrade its importance, but I expect a playoff-type atmosphere.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                            Fox has a report out today on injuries:

                            http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/m...-league-111610

                            Says if you go back to include training camp & preseason the Colts IR total is 20, tops in the league. For some reason there doesn't seem to be an official list anywhere.

                            Rosters at cbssports list 16 Colts as having an injury issue (the red box):
                            http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/r...anapolis-colts

                            and 15 Patriots:
                            http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/r...gland-patriots

                            Not all injury issues are similar, i.e. you can expect Brady to play!
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 11-18-2010, 12:00 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


                            • #15
                              Re: Indianapolis at New England - Game Thread - 11/21/10

                              That Colts list has to include Clint Session, Donald Brown, Mike Pollak (who missed at least last week and has maybe missed more.), I think at least one of our starting tackles missed time. Also, Blair White missed last week forcing us into playing Brandan James in the slot (which I hope to never see again, he's just not capable of it, he gave a decent effort though). Jacob Lacey should probably also be included, Tryon played well when he first arrived as an injury replacement, and is now injured and has missed a couple games.

                              I agree both teams have dealt with a significant amount of injuries and they are a part of the game anyway. I won't be focusing on either of those things come Sunday.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X