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:
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

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

Who will join Pagano in Indy?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

    Originally posted by Young View Post

    DC will be Greg Manusky. He was fired after one season as the Charger's DC. Before that he was the 49ers DC.
    Not exactly thrilled. Chargers had their worst defense with him as DC. I don't know how he did with the 49ers.
    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


    • #17
      Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

      Too bad he isn't bringing Lewis and Suggs with him.


      • #18
        Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?


        San Francisco 49ers' Defensive Coordinator Greg Manusky on the Hot Seat
        By Steven Resnick (Senior Writer) on September 12, 2010 669

        Greg Manusky has been the defensive coordinator for the San Francisco 49ers even before Mike Singletary took over as coach. In that time the 49ers defense against the run has improved tremendously so much so it's among the top three in the NFL.

        The 49ers philosophy for stopping the run is to put big guys up front such as Aubrayo Franklin, who's 6'4" 315, and Isaac Sopoaga at 6'2" 330. This allows the linebackers to get to the ball carrier quicker and not allow many rushing yards.

        With having the massive bodies up front, the Manusky-led defense loses its muster when attempting to stop the pass. Why? Those big men up front don't have the quickness to get to the quarterback. Since Manusky arrived four years ago, the 49ers have not had a pass rusher record over 10 sacks.

        The most sacks a 49er has had since arriving was Parys Haralson with eight in 2008. In 2009 the most sacks recorded by a 49er was Manny Lawson with six and a half.

        Now in 2009 the 49ers had 44 sacks, which was good for about three per game. It's important to note that eight sacks that the 49ers came in the last game of the season against the St. Louis Rams. Take the last game away and in 15 games the 49ers averaged two-and-a-half sacks.

        In the eight wins for the 49ers, the team recorded 30 sacks. In the eight losses, the 49ers recorded 14 sacks. That means there was an average of almost four sacks per game in wins and not even two sacks per game in the losses.

        Also with the eight wins, the 49ers gave up 183 yards passing on average, and in the eight losses the 49ers gave up 273 yards passing. There's a huge difference between the wins and the losses in terms of sacks and yards given up through the air.

        The problem with Manusky's defense has been seen—it's comparable to the situation that the University of California Golden Bears had with Bob Gregory. The Bears by all means had excellent defensive players that could stop the run, but not the pass.

        So, big games by quarterbacks happened on a regular basis even though the Bears had winning seasons. Luckily for the Bears, Gregory stepped down to become an assistant at Boise State and now Clancy Pendergast has become the defensive coordinator.

        He has brought in a different approach than what Gregory had, which is similar to the one employed by Manusky with the 49ers. Gregory didn't take a lot of risks, he didn't blitz, his defenses were not aggressive, and it allowed for a lot of yards through the air.

        With Pendergast at California so far, the Bears defense has been much more aggressive, the team has blitzed more, and it has done wonders for the secondary because the quarterbacks are no longer just standing in the pocket waiting for a receiver to get open. Now quarterbacks have to throw before they want to, and it's leading to incompletions and interceptions.

        Much like the Bears replacing Gregory after he left, the 49ers must do the same thing with Manusky. He will no doubt be around for the entire 2010 season, but if the 49ers continue to not defend the pass well, the lack of pass rush continues, and very few blitzes occur, it's time for Manusky to leave.

        From the time that Singletary took over as coach of the 49ers, he should have picked his own defensive coordinator. While Manusky has done a great job with getting the 49ers play against the run, he has failed miserably with the defense against the pass since he's taken over for the 49ers.

        At this point it's really time for the 49ers to take an assessment on what the positives are with keeping Manusky, and what the negatives would be with the continued employment of Manusky. Would it be better for the 49ers to bring in a new defensive coordinator who calls for the defense to be aggressive?

        Either way at the end of the season though, Manusky should be let go because the negatives are going to outweigh the positives that he brings.


        • #19
          Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

          by Superduperboltman on Jan 17, 2012 12:00 PM PST

          Denver. Tebows. 13 points in regulation with Philip Rivers and Norv Turner as your QB and coach? That should be a win. But 2 missed field goals can be blamed as well. After the 3 big wins over Jacksonville, Buffalo and Baltimore was a game where there was no defense so I can't say anything about that Detroit thing. What I can say with all honesty is that Greg Manusky did plenty bad to get fired, but no more than Norv did to retain his job. I honestly believe he was a scapegoat in the mess that was the 2011 season. Takeo Spikes was a blessing for grooming Donald Butler and Travis LaBoy had 3 good games to go with his 9 bad ones, so shame on that decision. However, I can't help but wonder just how little this defense could improve next year. Luis Castillo may not be back, and clearly he was a big factor in the overall suckage suffered this season. Who knows what got into Cason, Phillips spent a lot of time injured and/or inneffective, and Barnes and Garay played way too many snaps due to injury and promise/potential. Lots of strange decisions that both coaching and management need to address.

          The facts are, this defense worsened in every category compared to last year: Points allowed, passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed and sacks. Is that 100% attributable to coaching? Only if your reasoning is in line with the "bring back Marty" or "fire Sapnos" process. I hope John Pagano can improve this team's defense because it's hard to see them getting worse. The blame has to be put somewhere, and most of it was thrown out the window with Greg Manusky. But there is still blame to be spread and it's been quietly dismissed with promising talk and hope that next season will bring answers. Answers that unfortunately may not be from the questions we had from this season.


          • #20
            Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

            For those who followed his team (I did not), I have a question.

            Was the poor pass defense a matter of Manusky's scheme, or a matter of not having the personnel to defend a passing game?


            • #21
              Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

              From reading the fan forums, it seems like both.


              • #22
                Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                For those who followed his team (I did not), I have a question.

                Was the poor pass defense a matter of Manusky's scheme, or a matter of not having the personnel to defend a passing game?
                I thought they were good at times, but slipped up to often. I think their personal was pretty good, they had a bunch of first round guys in their secondary, and LB's were also pretty good, shaun phillips has been good for a while as well.

                I just hope whatever went wrong it does not show its face in Indy...
                Why so SERIOUS


                • #23
                  Re: Who will join Pagano in Indy?

                  I'd rather my defense stop the run and be woeful against the pass if I have to choose.... compared to what the Colts put on the field. At least you force teams to put the ball in the air which has way more opportunity for mistakes- drops... bad throws.... strips... QB not seeing the open player.... And then you have the chance, no matter how bad your pass defense is, that they do happen to make a play or two, or three.

                  Also, if your defense can stop the run you put a different kind of pressure on the opposing team's offense... especially if your own offense is good. You put a premium on their throws and catches. And it's harder to control the clock if you can't run. So your own offense should have more opportunities.

                  You might find yourself in a shootout, if your team is capable... but IMHO that's better than watching the other team cram the ball down your throat and control the clock while limiting your touches on offense.

                  Of course... ideally a tough, balanced defense should be the goal....
                  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, thatís teamwork."

                  -John Wooden