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

Houston /Indy

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

  • Re: Houston /Indy

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Tanking is stupid, and if you support it you have a loser's mentality. Sorry.
    It's not a loser's mentality for him to want the Colts to do what he truly believes will result in them winning the most games possible over the next ten plus years.

    I can kind of see your point from a player's point of view, but not necessarily from a fan's. Players play to win the game, period. But fans can have a variety of legit feelings, with some who want to win every Sunday no matter what and some who want their team to win as often as possible with an eye on the big picture (multiple seasons or an era).

    If a fan wants to just focus in the here and now, that's their prerogative. But likewise, if a fan wants to view things from a larger perspective (seasons or an era at a time), that their prerogative, too.

    Comment


    • Re: Houston /Indy

      The best NFL teams are not built through just getting one guy and hitching your wagon to them. They are built through smart efficient selections, which can be accomplished at the 1st, 2nd or 3rd pick or even the 20th, 21st, 22nd pick.

      We still own the number 1 pick, and while I won't be upset if we get it. I certainly won't be declaring the next decade of Colts football useless if we don't.


      Comment


      • Re: Houston /Indy

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        The best NFL teams are not built through just getting one guy and hitching your wagon to them. They are built through smart efficient selections, which can be accomplished at the 1st, 2nd or 3rd pick or even the 20th, 21st, 22nd pick.

        We still own the number 1 pick, and while I won't be upset if we get it. I certainly won't be declaring the next decade of Colts football useless if we don't.
        You gotta be honest man. If the Colts lose out on Kawhi Leonard, you will lose it...
        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


        • Re: Houston /Indy

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          It blows my mind that so many people would willingly lose at something. Just absolutely blows my mind. But I guess I have more of an athlete's take on this.
          I loosely think of it like this: Think of a major surgery. Do I WANT anyone to come at me with a blade, cut me open, and physically alter my insides? Generally, HELL NO, but if it's a surgery that will ultimately be beneficial to my health in the long run, I'm probably going to be willing to put up with the temporary setback, pain, discomfort, recovery to eventually feel better and be healthier than I did/was before the operation.

          Comment


          • Re: Houston /Indy

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            The Colts had 3 number 1 picks in the 90s, only one of them ever played in a Super Bowl. Over the past 25 years, only 8 number 1 picks have played in a Super Bowl, and one of those picks was Vinny Testaverde's corpse.
            It seems your argument here is that the #1 pick doesn't guarantee anything. I think everyone here agrees that it doesn't guarantee anything.

            But I think we can also agree that it's always better, in general, to be able to pick as highly as possible, even though there are no guarantees with any draft pick.

            I mean you wouldn't go around reminding people that a basketball player who shoots 45% from 3 is more likely to miss than hit a shot because it's true; more likely you would just refer to him as a hell of a shooter. Just like there is no better pick than 1st, even though it may bust.

            Comment


            • Re: Houston /Indy

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              It seems your argument here is that the #1 pick doesn't guarantee anything. I think everyone here agrees that it doesn't guarantee anything.
              Maybe you agree, but others don't. It's either Luck or bust in their minds.

              My position has been to trade the pick the entire time, and I've been told I'm wrong countless times.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Houston /Indy

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Maybe you agree, but others don't. It's either Luck or bust in their minds.

                My position has been to trade the pick the entire time, and I've been told I'm wrong countless times.
                Can't they just prefer to see how Luck does over trading the pick without necessarily thinking he can't miss, though?

                Comment


                • Re: Houston /Indy

                  There aren't any other options. I get told I'm wrong when I advocate trading the pick. If the Colts don't pick first, then the thinking is that they're going to suck for the next 10 years automatically.

                  What's the only option left? Getting the #1 pick and drafting Luck.


                  It's just another reason for people to be negative. This whole conversation is draped in negativity. I mean, Bball Fan has already admitted she's going to be upset if Peyton plays again.

                  That's the level of craziness this discussion brings.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Houston /Indy

                    RGIII is someone I think can become a great NFL QB, but if the Colts aren't getting Andrew Luck, then I don't see them going after a QB.

                    Justin Blackmon wouldn't be a bad choice. Especially if Reggie Wayne is leaving.
                    In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Houston /Indy

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      There aren't any other options. I get told I'm wrong when I advocate trading the pick. If the Colts don't pick first, then the thinking is that they're going to suck for the next 10 years automatically.

                      What's the only option left? Getting the #1 pick and drafting Luck.


                      It's just another reason for people to be negative. This whole conversation is draped in negativity. I mean, Bball Fan has already admitted she's going to be upset if Peyton plays again.

                      That's the level of craziness this discussion brings.
                      I think most people think that holding on to Manning and Luck for 1 to 2 years is the best option and even IRsay said he would draft Luck and keep Manning.

                      The argument really boils down to if you "think" Luck would sit for one to two years and you don't think he will. I think he will and a lot of people think he should but you don't think he will.

                      So who is being negative?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Houston /Indy

                        Who's not being negative is the better question. I'm pretty much the ONLY one that participates on this board that has held the position that Manning would be back next year.

                        We've argued about some unnamed Joe Blow saying he thinks there's about a 50% chance of him never playing again, and people actually defended his position in a number of different ways.

                        How many posters thought Manning was never going to play again, and some probably still do, compared to the number of us that thought he would?

                        I know of me and just about me on thinking he would.

                        Just look at the Reggie Wayne thread. He's a FA? Oh no, that must mean he's gone.

                        EDIT: Just go back and look at the way Reggie answered the question. I'm assuming the question was something close to "Will this be your last home game at LOS?"

                        His answer? It could. Yep, writing is on the wall. He's gone. It's just another example of people reading it the way they want it to read, rather than what was actually said.
                        Last edited by Since86; 12-23-2011, 12:46 PM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Houston /Indy

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Who's not being negative is the better question. I'm pretty much the ONLY one that participates on this board that has held the position that Manning would be back next year.

                          We've argued about some unnamed Joe Blow saying he thinks there's about a 50% chance of him never playing again, and people actually defended his position in a number of different ways.

                          How many posters thought Manning was never going to play again, and some probably still do, compared to the number of us that thought he would?

                          I know of me and just about me on thinking he would.

                          Just look at the Reggie Wayne thread. He's a FA? Oh no, that must mean he's gone.
                          I know I sure thought he would play again. The surgery has a high success rate and most people including NFL qbs come back to start in the league with the same injury.

                          So many things have been argued on this board but I still go back to where we are. We should draft Luck and hold on to Manning if he's healthy.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Houston /Indy

                            Personally, I want to see two years of healthy Manning and Luck behind him, then however many more years with Luck after that if he is worth it. It's my understanding that if the Colts lose next Sunday they can potentially see this scenario happen. So personally I'm hoping they lose that game.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Houston /Indy

                              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                              I think some of you need to stop this absolutely stereotypical characterization of the many fans who don't agree with you on this issue as fair weathered. We've been over and over calling anyone that on this forum various times. You guys come off as arrogant and holier than thou when you let your emotions lead you to calling out fans, their loyalty, their knowledge, and their intelligence directly, instead of talking about the issue. I, for one, find the characterization patently offensive.
                              I consider myself a loyal fan for life of the Colts and Pacers and I'm sure you probably view yourself the same way. I'm not calling anyone in particular a fairweathered fan, but the fact is there ARE fairweathered fans, maybe even a great deal of them, that root for the Colts and Pacers. People that bail on their teams when the losses start piling up get under my skin. I have never called anyone on here a fairweathered fan, and I don't feel that either of my posts came off as arrogant or "holier than thou." Maybe you weren't specifically directing this at me, but you bolded my post so I felt the need to respond. I just like to look at the big picture when it comes to this Colts team that I have grown up with since '83. Last night, I honestly felt, right or wrong, that we COULD have handicapped ourselves for the next decade. I don't blame the players, and I don't blame the fans for cheering last night. I don't think that Caldwell is a good NFL coach, and over the last two years, including last night, he has proven that with his poor game and clock management. Did winning last night save his job? Possibly. Did it cost us the #1 pick? Possibly. I wasn't rooting against us last night, and I never will, I simply had a horrible gut feeling that we MAY have shot ourselves in the foot. I think that the Polian's may have worn out their welcome here and are too stubborn for their own good. I totally can see yours and others view on this board that don't agree with Shade, Vnzla, and myself, and I get it. I just view it differently.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Houston /Indy

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Who's not being negative is the better question. I'm pretty much the ONLY one that participates on this board that has held the position that Manning would be back next year.
                                No, you're about the only one on the board who has refused to acknowledge that because of the nerve issue in particular it's not a foregone conclusion that Manning can return 100% ever.

                                Few if any have taken the stance that he will absolutely not be back, and back 100% or close enough. But many have acknowledged the situation is murky enough that the Colts absolutely cannot just assume he'll be back 100%. And it's not some .009% chance that he won't be back 100% either.

                                Even Irsay acknowledged as much yesterday.

                                But keep arguing that the debate is between he will be back or he won't be back if you want.... But that's not what's been discussed. What's been discussed is how the team needs to address the situation when their 36 year old franchise QB is healing from an injury that doesn't have a near 100% success rate (and clarity might not be obtainable by certain dates on the calendar when decisions need to be made).
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X