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

Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

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

  • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    You would have the sane and rational approach. The crazy, irrational approach this off-season was one of two things:

    1. Trade the first pick, and upgrade the roster with one maybe two blue-chip prospects in other positions of need. Basically build for a maybe 3 year window, assuming Peyton were to come back as "prime" Peyton at the advanced age of 36.

    2. Draft Luck, but keep Manning around. This way Luck could learn under the mentoring of Peyton just like Aaron Rodgers learned from Favre.

    These two choices are basically for fans living in a fantasy world. Irsay clearly made the correct choice
    Some of us just don't agree with you about any of that. Time will tell. I think it will be a long, long time but I hope you are right and I am wrong.... ...

    Comment


    • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

      Yea, but you gotta admit, for someone who throws around odds and chances and historical reference about our rookie quarterback, you sure do put a lot of stock into winning championships over the next maybe 3 years with a 36-year-old damaged Manning who doesn't look quite the same throwing the ball... you more than anyone oughtta know that's not good odds/chances and no historical precedence showing that it's a likely outcome.

      This entire Colts/Manning scenario with bitter fans is driven completely by emotion. Guess there's nothing wrong with that because it's human... Not saying I have no emotion or I'm not human, lol... but I was sad for a few months and then I moved on. I'm not sad about Irsay's actions, because I know he's not this devil that people are claiming, he's not like his dad... he made the tough but correct decision for the future of this franchise... I was sad essentially that Manning had to get hurt, because that's really what drove change in this organization. Had that not happened, this entire scenario wouldn't be happening, and we as Colts fans would be watching Luck go somewhere else and build a legacy. It would've been awesome to see Manning finish his legacy here and ride off into the sunset, but that's life. It doesn't happen all the time. Montana... Favre... Unitas... Namath... all were legends, and none of them finished their career with the team they experienced glory with. The ones who did, they had shorter careers...

      Luck is a silver lining in a dark cloud. We got lucky.

      In a few years all these people who are pissing and moaning now will see the logic in all these organizational moves. It's ripping the band-aid off and letting it heal instead of letting it drag out with a bunch of medicine and bandages. There's a lot of dead money this year that comes off the books next year, fresh regime, new talent, and a lot of flexibility next year... it's gonna be a much faster turn-around than had we just limped along with Manning for the next 3-5 years and we'll be set up for a much longer period of time.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-14-2012, 01:29 PM.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Yea, but you gotta admit, for someone who throws around odds and chances and historical reference about our rookie quarterback, you sure do put a lot of stock into winning championships over the next maybe 3 years with a 36-year-old damaged Manning who doesn't look quite the same throwing the ball... you more than anyone oughtta know that's not good odds/chances and no historical precedence showing that it's a likely outcome.

        This entire Colts/Manning scenario with bitter fans is driven completely by emotion. Guess there's nothing wrong with that because it's human... Not saying I have no emotion or I'm not human, lol... but I was sad for a few months and then I moved on. I'm not sad about Irsay's actions, because I know he's not this devil that people are claiming, he's not like his dad... he made the tough but correct decision for the future of this franchise... I was sad essentially that Manning had to get hurt, because that's really what drove change in this organization. Had that not happened, this entire scenario wouldn't be happening, and we as Colts fans would be watching Luck go somewhere else and build a legacy. It would've been awesome to see Manning finish his legacy here and ride off into the sunset, but that's life. It's never really happened. Montana... Favre... Unitas.... all were legends, and none of them finished their career with the team they experienced glory with. Luck is a silver lining in a dark cloud. We got lucky.

        In a few years all these people who are pissing and moaning now will see the logic in all these organizational moves.
        I don't know about other but I thought Manning DESERVED to end his career in Indy on his terms. He broke a 36 year string of futility by taking this team to the Super Bowl twice. I thought that should have been the priority. I think the Colts will be down for many, many years but I will be delighted to be surprised and proven wrong. But I don't really think that I am wrong. ...

        Comment


        • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

          Which of those legends didn't "deserve" to have a storybook ending to their careers? Doesn't mean it's a guarantee that it'll happen. Favre was a bit of a trainwreck, but Montana? Unitas? Same story, injuries.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

            I disagree with Blu on many things here, but the fact is that we aren't a good team, and you're probably deluding yourself if you think we're going to win a lot of games this year. Our defense will not be good at all. Our secondary is absolutely atrocious and we just lost Angerer for 6+ weeks. We have a brand new defensive system for which we really don't have the players for. The defense will be awful.

            The offense will be pretty decent. But you have to keep in mind Luck is a rookie, and he's going to have his lumps. We still don't have a running game, and our offensive line is shaky (we don't know how well that will get better. it might, we don't know).

            This team will not get close to 10 wins. I think 5-6 is pretty optimistic, 4-5 seems realistic.

            Now, I don't agree with Blu on his long term projections of this team, but there is no way we're going to do as well as you people think.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

              Wrong thread?

              And most people are saying around 5-7 wins, which is in-line with your own thoughts, so you might re-evaluate what you're perceiving, because only like one person has proclaimed 10 wins.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                That was towards PF.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                  Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                  That was towards PF.
                  What's PF?
                  Never half-a** two things. Whole-a** one thing.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                    Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                    I disagree with Blu on many things here, but the fact is that we aren't a good team, and you're probably deluding yourself if you think we're going to win a lot of games this year. Our defense will not be good at all. Our secondary is absolutely atrocious and we just lost Angerer for 6+ weeks. We have a brand new defensive system for which we really don't have the players for. The defense will be awful.

                    The offense will be pretty decent. But you have to keep in mind Luck is a rookie, and he's going to have his lumps. We still don't have a running game, and our offensive line is shaky (we don't know how well that will get better. it might, we don't know).

                    This team will not get close to 10 wins. I think 5-6 is pretty optimistic, 4-5 seems realistic.

                    Now, I don't agree with Blu on his long term projections of this team, but there is no way we're going to do as well as you people think.
                    The defense will not be as bad as people think. It will be your typical "bend but don't break" defense that we saw during the Manning years. Colts will have problems stopping the run, and will give up long time-consuming drives resulting in FG's. The running game is also better than what the "experts" say. Donald Brown isn't good in short yardage, but he has the ability to take it house when he gets the running lanes. People shouldn't dismiss or call DB a "bust" when he has shown several times the ability to make the big play. Vick Ballard will be our "grinding" RB to get the tough yards. He puts his head down and falls forward.

                    Don't believe what you read from the "experts" when it comes to predictions in the pre-season. It seems like every season a perceived "horrible" team comes out of nowhere and makes the playoffs.
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                      That was towards PF.
                      Saying "you people" doesn't lend people to believe you're referring to one person. The post sounded like you were rebutting the majority of posters on here and agreeing with blu.

                      For your information, blu said we'd be lucky to reach 3 wins and he voted in the poll that 0-2 wins would be the likely outcome of this season. From your post saying 4-5 wins is realistic, it sounds more like you agree with the majority and not with blu.

                      Here are the results of the poll that show how most posters think for this season
                      57% choose 3-5 wins
                      33% choose 6-8 wins
                      No other option was over 4%

                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...lts-in-2012-13
                      Last edited by Swingman; 08-14-2012, 05:30 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        I don't know about other but I thought Manning DESERVED to end his career in Indy on his terms. He broke a 36 year string of futility by taking this team to the Super Bowl twice. I thought that should have been the priority. I think the Colts will be down for many, many years but I will be delighted to be surprised and proven wrong. But I don't really think that I am wrong. ...
                        Manning sealed his fate by signing that $20 million contract knowing he was injured. I don't want to get off topic here, and many will disagree with me, but Manning shouldn't taken that deal knowing his season was in doubt
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          Manning sealed his fate by signing that $20 million contract knowing he was injured. I don't want to get off topic here, and many will disagree with me, but Manning shouldn't taken that deal knowing his season was in doubt
                          Why? Another team would have signed him. He didn't know his season was in doubt when he signed it. It is OK to be a Manning hater but this is just silly...... ... reloads the whole page.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                            Manning did what was best for Manning. I don't feel sorry for him that the Colts couldn't afford to keep him.

                            I can't blame Manning for taking all the money he could get before his career is over but I don't see how people can fault the Colts for then deciding on what is best for the franchise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                              Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                              Saying "you people" doesn't lend people to believe you're referring to one person. The post sounded like you were rebutting the majority of posters on here and agreeing with blu.

                              For your information, blu said we'd be lucky to reach 3 wins and he voted in the poll that 0-2 wins would be the likely outcome of this season. From your post saying 4-5 wins is realistic, it sounds more like you agree with the majority and not with blu.

                              Here are the results of the poll that show how most posters think for this season
                              57% choose 3-5 wins
                              33% choose 6-8 wins
                              No other option was over 4%

                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...lts-in-2012-13
                              I think I have been consistent. I don't think they will win more than they did last year and they are a threat not to win any at all. I will be very happy if they get to three or four wins and Luck shows that he is the real deal and not the second best QB in the draft. He made great strides in doing that against the Rams. RG3 also looked very good. The only thing that bothered me a little bit about that game was that the the back-up QBs were even better than Luck..... ...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                                Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                                Manning did what was best for Manning. I don't feel sorry for him that the Colts couldn't afford to keep him.

                                I can't blame Manning for taking all the money he could get before his career is over but I don't see how people can fault the Colts for then deciding on what is best for the franchise.
                                I hate to keep pointing this out but there are LOTS of fans who do not agree that the Colts did what was best for the franchise including me. I think what they did, will make Luck and any future superstar take a long look on whether to stay with the Colts or move to another team if the money is the same. Certainly the Colts showed no loyalty whatsoever and players will remember that. It could mean something to potential free agents thinking about coming to Indy too. I know it would to me. Do you think Brady will ever throw a pass for any team but the Patriots? I don't. ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X