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

Colts-Broncos

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

  • Re: Colts-Broncos

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Last night was just Peyton. His teammates got out of his way and let him enjoy that moment to himself. That was a special and classy tribute by the Colts, and I'm so glad that they did it the way they did. There's no way that they could have just ignored the situation. Both the fans and Peyton deserved it. I don't see how anyone could possibly criticize that after seeing how perfectly it played out.

    It's already been three years since he last took a snap here. If we would have waited until he retired to do a tribute, then it would have been 6-7 years. We had to take advantage of the moment last night and give him a tribute while his time here was still fresh. Besides, he'll get a Ring of Honor ceremony someday. Last night wasn't his final ovation at Lucas Oil.

    Still fresh? You mean like when they had the Marvin tribute years after he was cut from the Colts? See that I would've preferred because he wasn't an opponent. Manning was.

    Not to mention if they did it later it would've been a few years after the Irsay twitter kerfuffle as opposed to days later making the whole thing seem real artificial on his end.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts-Broncos

      Reading some stuff (Stampede Blue) about the Vonte Davis "Tom Brady" comment, ate people actually saying he took a swipe at Peyton or that he's stupid? He misspoke!

      Comment


      • Re: Colts-Broncos

        Originally posted by Ransom View Post
        Reading some stuff (Stampede Blue) about the Vonte Davis "Tom Brady" comment, ate people actually saying he took a swipe at Peyton or that he's stupid? He misspoke!
        I actually think Vontae is stupid for other things but I didn't think he was dissing Peyton.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts-Broncos

          Luck clearly established himself as football's top QB. Remarkable....
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • Re: Colts-Broncos

            I don't know how the stats bear things out, but for my layman eyes, Luck was mostly fantastic last night. So happy the Colts got him. I loved Manning's time here, but I've felt and never wavered in feeling that Irsay made the right decision. We had already enjoyed 13 years with Manning. I'd rather have potentially 13 or more years with Luck if the cost is another 2-5 more years with Manning. They're both great, so just do the simple math: 13+ years of great QB play > 2,3,4, or 5 more years of great QB play

            Comment


            • Re: Colts-Broncos

              After hearing more about Irsay's 'controversial' comments last night I feel even more confident it wasn't a slam against Manning. The idea that he made it raw by mentioning Brady by name name I think is also off. I still believe Irsay was saying "We had Peyton Manning, one of the best to ever play the game, if we'd done a better job of balancing the team around him we could've won more in the playoffs (and own more Lombardi trophies)". If anything it was a slam to Brady because I think Irsay was saying that Brady, a QB that won more SB's than Manning, was never as good as Manning. I just think the context got lost that he considered it obvious that he felt Manning was one of the true NFL greats and he saw no reason to drive that point home.
              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


              • Re: Colts-Broncos

                Even though we gave up 30 points, the defense was awesome all night forcing TOs and getting stops
                Smothered Chicken!

                Comment


                • Re: Colts-Broncos

                  Somebody said "the game would have a playoff atmosphere and we all know about Manning in the playoffs". They then picked the Colts to win. So were they right in their logic?
                  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


                  • Re: Colts-Broncos

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    After hearing more about Irsay's 'controversial' comments last night I feel even more confident it wasn't a slam against Manning. The idea that he made it raw by mentioning Brady by name name I think is also off. I still believe Irsay was saying "We had Peyton Manning, one of the best to ever play the game, if we'd done a better job of balancing the team around him we could've won more in the playoffs (and own more Lombardi trophies)". If anything it was a slam to Brady because I think Irsay was saying that Brady, a QB that won more SB's than Manning, was never as good as Manning. I just think the context got lost that he considered it obvious that he felt Manning was one of the true NFL greats and he saw no reason to drive that point home.

                    It was a shot at Manning I really don't get how anyone doesn't see that? I doubt Fran Tarkenton would've reacted the way he did otherwise. Or if Bob Kraft said this about Tom Brady we'd be saying that it was a shot how is this different? That being said he didn't say anything worse than what the media and some people here have said for years either so in that regard I found it overblown. Didn't help when he backtracked which made it worse.

                    Not to mention revisionist history the Colts moved on from Manning because he was "old" and had 4 neck surgeries he wasn't going to pay $$$ for it when he was in a position to get Andrew Luck the younger and cheaper version of Peyton Manning was within his sights.

                    I mean if Manning was such a "burden" he would've dumped him years ago but he didn't. When Luck became available then Manning was expendable to him. I agreed with moving on but I don't buy Irsay's reasons for it.

                    I picked the Colts because it was at home and the Broncos had looked suspect defensively all season thus far. If it was in Denver I think the result might've been different. Had very little to do with the pregame stuff for a regular season game although it will be spun that way I'm sure.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts-Broncos

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      Still fresh? You mean like when they had the Marvin tribute years after he was cut from the Colts? See that I would've preferred because he wasn't an opponent. Manning was.

                      Not to mention if they did it later it would've been a few years after the Irsay twitter kerfuffle as opposed to days later making the whole thing seem real artificial on his end.

                      Harrison's Ring of Honor ceremony was in 2011, three years after he last played for us in 2008. Manning's tribute last night was three years after he last played for us in 2010. If we would have waited until Peyton retired to honor him, then we would have been looking at 6-7 years since he last played here. But he's still going to get a Ring of Honor ceremony someday. It's not an either/or thing. We couldn't pass up the opportunity last night to let the fans say goodbye. The fans are the ones who make everything possible, and they deserved to say goodbye to him. Like I said, Manning and Irsay got to say their goodbyes a year and a half ago, but the fans never got to say goodbye.

                      Yes, he was the opponent. And that's why we gave everything we had to beat him on the football field. But him being an opponent had nothing to do with the tribute. The tribute was about the 13 wonderful years that he spent here as a HOF QB. Him being an opponent does nothing to erase the success that he had here. Every single franchise would have done what we did. You can't give tributes to guys like Cato June while doing nothing for Peyton. The tribute was to acknowledge his Indy success. The Denver uniform was meaningless during that special moment.

                      I don't see how anyone could look at the genuine emotion on Peyton's face during that tribute and think, "yeah, the Colts shouldn't have done that." I've heard nothing but universal praise for the tribute.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts-Broncos

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        All I got to say about TRich and Brown is that Ballard and Bradshaw were able to get yards behind this same OL.

                        Richardson seems to lack the vision and speed to be an every down back. He has the power you need in short yardage situations. He does a couple of things that made Edge great, blocking and always falls forwards. Good skills you want at RB, but I don't think it is likely he turns it around. He is a 4th round talent. I expect next year, if Ballard is healthy, Ballard will be our starter getting the majority of carries. With Richardson being the back-up and short yardage guy. Honestly, right now Carter looks like a better RB than Richardson.

                        Brown's problems should be well known by now. He is good in change of pace situations, and when he gets a hole that he can't miss he is 20 yards down field before the other team realizes it. If he doesn't get that hole he doesn't offer much.
                        Our line at the beginning of the season was what I'd consider better than what we're seeing now. The line play has regressed since Ballard and Bradshaw went down. Ballard didn't get to play but 13 plays this entire year, so not sure how you came to that conclusion. Bradshaw had one monster game... but the line was playing differently then. We had Donald Thomas around then, also. Our line was getting some really good openings and push in that game, I specifically remember Bradshaw running through some gulfs.

                        The line clearly isn't operating at the same level. They've been terrible.
                        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: Colts-Broncos

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          Luck clearly established himself as football's top QB. Remarkable....
                          After a first half in which he played very well, he didn't look crisp in the second half at all. I was at the game so I may be wrong but didn't he only have net 9 yards passing in the entire second half?

                          Our defense and special teams won that game last night. Our offense had it's moments, but to say Luck is the games top QB is jumping the gun a bit there in my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts-Broncos

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            Somebody said "the game would have a playoff atmosphere and we all know about Manning in the playoffs". They then picked the Colts to win. So were they right in their logic?
                            I actually thought Peyton played well, but our defense dominated their O-Line and skill players physically. Denver also had plenty of dumbass mistakes.

                            I'll tell you what though, that's the LOUDEST ice ever heard a colts crowd in Lucas Oil

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts-Broncos

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Harrison's Ring of Honor ceremony was in 2011, three years after he last played for us in 2008. Manning's tribute last night was three years after he last played for us in 2010. If we would have waited until Peyton retired to honor him, then we would have been looking at 6-7 years since he last played here. But he's still going to get a Ring of Honor ceremony someday. It's not an either/or thing. We couldn't pass up the opportunity last night to let the fans say goodbye. The fans are the ones who make everything possible, and they deserved to say goodbye to him. Like I said, Manning and Irsay got to say their goodbyes a year and a half ago, but the fans never got to say goodbye.

                              Yes, he was the opponent. And that's why we gave everything we had to beat him on the football field. But him being an opponent had nothing to do with the tribute. The tribute was about the 13 wonderful years that he spent here as a HOF QB. Him being an opponent does nothing to erase the success that he had here. Every single franchise would have done what we did. You can't give tributes to guys like Cato June while doing nothing for Peyton. The tribute was to acknowledge his Indy success. The Denver uniform was meaningless during that special moment.

                              I don't see how anyone could look at the genuine emotion on Peyton's face during that tribute and think, "yeah, the Colts shouldn't have done that." I've heard nothing but universal praise for the tribute.

                              I must've missed the Cato June tribute but he and Peyton are two totally different players when it comes to the impact of this franchise or city for that matter. I just always think these things should be saved for retirement I say this about anyone really. I mean 5 days 5 years I highly doubt people are going to forget Peyton used to play for the Colts if we did it after he retired.

                              And like I said before the fans said their goodbye when it was all about "Suck for Luck" no standing ovation was going to change what already happened. It just glosses up the cold hard business of professional sports. You're wanted until someone better comes along.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts-Broncos

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                I must've missed the Cato June tribute but he and Peyton are two totally different players when it comes to the impact of this franchise or city for that matter. I just always think these things should be saved for retirement I say this about anyone really. I mean 5 days 5 years I highly doubt people are going to forget Peyton used to play for the Colts if we did it after he retired.

                                And like I said before the fans said their goodbye when it was all about "Suck for Luck" no standing ovation was going to change what already happened. It just glosses up the cold hard business of professional sports. You're wanted until someone better comes along.
                                The Cato June tribute was in 2007 when Tampa played here. I was at that game and we played a little video. I was also at the Falcons game in 2011 when Kelvin Hayden returned. We played a video for him which obviously focused on the Super Bowl interception. You can't set a precedent for giving videos to guys like that only to ignore Peyton freaking Manning.

                                I don't understand what sports being a cold business has to do with giving a tribute. I agree with the decisions the Colts made, but I still would have given Peyton an ovation if I attended the game. Those two things don't have anything to do with one another.

                                No one ever said that a standing ovation was going to change anything. There's no need to find some super deep meaning to it. It was what it was - fans giving a genuine round of applause to a legendary athlete who was obviously touched by the moment. What happened over the course of a few months in late 2011/early 2012 does nothing to erase the bond between Peyton and the community which existed for 13 years. It was a simple "thank you", nothing more, nothing less.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X