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

    This entire argument is stupid. If the Colts purposefully tank in order to get a draft pick, I will NOT be a Colts fan. That is not how an organization should be run, nor should that ever be the mentality of a player. You don't ever ask a player to give 50% in order to get a draft pick. That's just stupid. You play to win the game, and it doesn't matter if the #1 pick is on the line. I want the #1 pick too, but I tried rooting against the Colts last night and hated it. The Colts players would be absolutely disgusted if they were told to not give 100%.

    As far as I'm concerned, Luck is no guarantee. Sure we can trade the pick for more picks, but you don't play to lose. You never, ever play to lose. If we get the pick, then do what you want. If we lose next week, then this entire argument is a waste of time. But you have much bigger issues if we tank. I would then worry about whether or not this organization actually does care about winning.

    This is not about the greater good. This is not about 10-15 years in the future. The players playing don't give a **** about that. You play to win the game, and doing anything other than that is just horseshit.
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

    Comment


    • Re: Houston /Indy

      Oh, and I bet Manning comes back next year to his normal self. And we still have ridiculously good draft picks available to help us win a title.
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • Re: Houston /Indy

        Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
        This entire argument is stupid. If the Colts purposefully tank in order to get a draft pick, I will NOT be a Colts fan. That is not how an organization should be run, nor should that ever be the mentality of a player. You don't ever ask a player to give 50% in order to get a draft pick. That's just stupid. You play to win the game, and it doesn't matter if the #1 pick is on the line. I want the #1 pick too, but I tried rooting against the Colts last night and hated it. The Colts players would be absolutely disgusted if they were told to not give 100%.

        As far as I'm concerned, Luck is no guarantee. Sure we can trade the pick for more picks, but you don't play to lose. You never, ever play to lose. If we get the pick, then do what you want. If we lose next week, then this entire argument is a waste of time. But you have much bigger issues if we tank. I would then worry about whether or not this organization actually does care about winning.

        This is not about the greater good. This is not about 10-15 years in the future. The players playing don't give a **** about that. You play to win the game, and doing anything other than that is just horseshit.
        I agree with you but did we play to win 2 years ago against the Jets?

        Comment


        • Re: Houston /Indy

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          To further prove the insanity of all the complaining in this thread, is the fact that we still have the number 1 pick...and own the tiebreakers.
          Good point Trader Joe, we lose to the Jags and Luck is ours no matter what else happens

          Comment


          • Re: Houston /Indy

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            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).
            Oh stop.


            I've repeatedly pointed that none of the "experts" you guys latch on too have ever seen any of Peyton's medical records, let alone have the expertise to be able to diagnosis an injury.

            Whenever something negative was said about Peyton, and the probability of him not coming back, it was posted on this board and talked about like it was fact.

            And you're right, the discussion is about addressing the teams problems, none of which have anything do with a new freaking QB.

            What has been the main reason the Colts struggled this decade in the playoffs? Because of QB play or because of the defense? Uh defense.

            Swapping out Luck for Peyton doesn't address any of the other problems. But yet your focused on addressing them, by advocating the drafting of a QB?

            Come on.....

            EDIT: Just take a look at the Reggie Wayne thread and reread what his answer was, and the direction the thread took.

            He said it's possible he might not be back and the discussion revolved around him not coming back period, with people talking about how big of a shame it was to end this era of the Colts.

            It's a freaking joke. You mean to tell me there's a possibility that a FA won't be back with their team? NO WAY!!
            Last edited by Since86; 12-23-2011, 02:31 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Houston /Indy

              Count me amongst those who believe there's a good chance Peyton won't come back 100%. And that's based on a similar injury/surgeries a couple of people I know have had, and where it left them afterwards.

              And even if Peyton does come back 100%, what do you do after 2-3 years when he hangs 'em up? This is likely the best chance we'll have to snag another franchise QB and restructure the team without wallowing in mediocrity for another decade.

              Comment


              • Re: Houston /Indy

                The best chance at restructuring the team is getting as many high draft picks as possible. How many QBs taken #1 have won a SB? Probably a lot less than those who were drafted in other selections.

                I've said it multiple times, Andrew Luck will not win all of the SBs while he's in the NFL. He won't even win 50% of them. That means that a QB not named Andrew Luck is going to win some.

                The Colts future isn't dependent on whether or not they draft one stinking player.

                Everyone likes to compare him to Peyton Manning. You mean the best that's ever played that's only one SB? You mean the best since Dan Marino who never even won one?

                If you want the Colts to change directions, then I would think you'd want them to not draft a franchise saving QB and become completely dependent on whether or not he carries you. That's what the Colts have done for the entire PM tenure. If you want the Colts to go different directions, then go a different direction and not start out the same exact path.
                Last edited by Since86; 12-23-2011, 02:54 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Houston /Indy

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  The best chance at restructuring the team is getting as many high draft picks as possible. How many QBs taken #1 have won a SB? Probably a lot less than those who were drafted in other selections.
                  Not all drafts are the same and the NFL has changed a tremendous amount in the last 20 years.

                  You use to be able to win with a very average QB but its a different NFL now.

                  In the last 5 years this is a very good draft for the number one overall selection. Everyone admits it. ITs not a ALex Smith or Russel pick so why not go for Andrew Luck and figure it out as you go. If Manning looks 80% then trade him for picks. IF Luck looks average then trade him down the road. One things for sure someone will trade a lot of picks for a 80% Manning or a 2 year veteran Andrew Luck.

                  The team needs to be rebuilt but its not like all 50 some players need to go. The colts need about 5-10 players to be very competitive in the AFC IMO.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Houston /Indy

                    How many QBs taken #1 have won a SB?


                    I've said it multiple times, Andrew Luck will not win all of the SBs while he's in the NFL. He won't even win 50% of them. That means that a QB not named Andrew Luck is going to win some.
                    By that same logic, we shouldn't have drafted Peyton then, either.

                    Everyone likes to compare him to Peyton Manning. You mean the best that's ever played that's only one SB? You mean the best since Dan Marino who never even won one?
                    Obviously, you have to put the right team around him, as well. But it doesn't work at all until you have the centerpiece.

                    If you want the Colts to change directions, then I would think you'd want them to not draft a franchise saving QB and become completely dependent on whether or not he carries you. That's what the Colts have done for the entire PM tenure. If you want the Colts to go different directions, then go a different direction and not start out the same exact path.
                    Or, preferably, we get Polian's overrated *** out of here and let someone who knows what they're doing build a team around Luck.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Houston /Indy

                      I agree with that, but then it goes back to this question.

                      Is Andrew Luck going to be the only QB in the near future that is able to win for the next 10-15 years?

                      Clearly the answer is no.

                      There are going to be other QBs that win, and win SBs while Luck is in the league. Why wouldn't you take someone like Kellen Moore, or RGIII, (now that Barkley is gone) and have a QB that could be a pretty damn good NFL QB and keep the other 4-5 other draft picks?

                      Andrew Luck isn't the end all be all of the NFL.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Houston /Indy

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        By that same logic, we shouldn't have drafted Peyton then, either.
                        Yeah, you're right. The Colts drafted Peyton with a HOF QB still on the roster. The situation in 1998 or whenever isn't even close to the same situation as it is today. If Peyton doesn't get hurt then the Colts aren't even in this position. If whoever the QB for the Colts was the year they won the rights to Peyton, wasn't healthy they still would have had the #1 pick.

                        The talent level of the roster today is still light years better than what it was when PM was drafted.

                        You get a half way decent QB under center, and the Colts aren't the worst team in the league. They still have a lot of players capable of producing.

                        Angerer. Mathis. Freeney. Dallas. Bethea. Reggie. Those are All Pro caliber players.

                        How many Pro Bowlers were on the Colts roster when Peyton was selected? Not nearly that many.

                        That's not even counting the number of other really good players that aren't quite Pro Bowl caliber, like Collie. Like Conner. Hell, like Sims.

                        The Colts still have a ton of talent.

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        Obviously, you have to put the right team around him, as well. But it doesn't work at all until you have the centerpiece.
                        Yeah, and Andrew Luck won't be the only centerpiece available for the next decade. There will be others.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Houston /Indy

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I agree with that, but then it goes back to this question.

                          Is Andrew Luck going to be the only QB in the near future that is able to win for the next 10-15 years?

                          Clearly the answer is no.

                          There are going to be other QBs that win, and win SBs while Luck is in the league. Why wouldn't you take someone like Kellen Moore, or RGIII, (now that Barkley is gone) and have a QB that could be a pretty damn good NFL QB and keep the other 4-5 other draft picks?

                          Andrew Luck isn't the end all be all of the NFL.
                          Trading down to pick RGIII doesn't mean 4-5 other draft picks. For Moore its possible but I doubt it. Point is you take the best player and go from there and I have to believe IRsay will go for Luck over any other QB in this draft.

                          OF course if we win the next game then that point is moot. The hilarous thing is that I doubt anyone thought we had a real chance at Luck this year even without Manning. Shade didn't and I know I didn't but here we are one game away and too many posts to count.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Houston /Indy

                            How does it not? If you trade the #1 draft pick you're going to get 5-6 draft picks in return. I've already laid this out.

                            The Chargers got two firsts, a third, and a fifth round draft pick for Eli. You don't think the Colts are going to that, or even more than that, for Luck?

                            They're atleast going to get 4 draft selections for him.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Houston /Indy

                              It depends on how far the Colts would be trading down though...
                              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 Since86 View Post
                                Yeah, you're right. The Colts drafted Peyton with a HOF QB still on the roster. The situation in 1998 or whenever isn't even close to the same situation as it is today. If Peyton doesn't get hurt then the Colts aren't even in this position. If whoever the QB for the Colts was the year they won the rights to Peyton, wasn't healthy they still would have had the #1 pick.

                                The talent level of the roster today is still light years better than what it was when PM was drafted.

                                You get a half way decent QB under center, and the Colts aren't the worst team in the league. They still have a lot of players capable of producing.

                                Angerer. Mathis. Freeney. Dallas. Bethea. Reggie. Those are All Pro caliber players.

                                How many Pro Bowlers were on the Colts roster when Peyton was selected? Not nearly that many.

                                That's not even counting the number of other really good players that aren't quite Pro Bowl caliber, like Collie. Like Conner. Hell, like Sims.

                                The Colts still have a ton of talent.



                                Yeah, and Andrew Luck won't be the only centerpiece available for the next decade. There will be others.
                                Yeah the Colts have a bunch of pro bowl caliber players and all that but their record is still 2 and 13 and we like it or not they suck.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X