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

Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

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

  • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

    Originally posted by Really? View Post
    With Lucks passing, he has also had trouble on out routes at times as far as arm strength is concerned, but he has gotten better at that as well. One of the things I notice is that when he sees a guy that is wide open, he tends less than enough velocity behind the ball, it is like he wants to make sure that he makes it an easy catch. This is good in some situations because it increases the likelihood that a player will catch the ball, but on the other hand, the player typically does not have as much time to run after the catch, especially with the speed of the defenses.

    I also would not say that Griffin does not know how to win, he has seemed to fair pretty well in pressure, and has lost a lot of close games so far this year, but you also have to remember that his teams pass defense is 31st in the league in regards to yards, that is definitely a hindrance in close games.

    In regards to his record vs Luck, he only has one more loss, but he has also played one more game, so I would not really read much into that. Also when he got hurt the score was 7-7 and he was putting together a drive in the redzone to give them the lead, who knows what happens in a close game if he is still in.

    I also agree that both QB's will be very good, not giving both the great part yet, but I would not rule out Cam Newton, he is in critical period of his career right now, and will need to learn how to overcome his weaknesses and adversity to pull through and win games, still only his second year in the league.
    The score was 7-7 on a Matt Ryan pick 6 so I wouldn't notch a feather in RG3 cap for that.

    I said this early RG3 has yet to win a game against a decent pass rush and pass defense. This to me isn't suprising at all because he is a rookie but we all need to see growth against teams that actually have a good defense. The same can be said of Luck but he did go against a Vikings team that is underrated IMO and of course the good thing is that RG3 will have to face that same team if he is healthy so atleast a comparable comparsion can be made here.

    Luck has a better defense and RG3 has a top notch rushing attack. Both help to win games so IMO its kind of a wash.

    Comment


    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      The score was 7-7 on a Matt Ryan pick 6 so I wouldn't notch a feather in RG3 cap for that.

      I said this early RG3 has yet to win a game against a decent pass rush and pass defense. This to me isn't suprising at all because he is a rookie but we all need to see growth against teams that actually have a good defense. The same can be said of Luck but he did go against a Vikings team that is underrated IMO and of course the good thing is that RG3 will have to face that same team if he is healthy so atleast a comparable comparsion can be made here.

      Luck has a better defense and RG3 has a top notch rushing attack. Both help to win games so IMO its kind of a wash.
      True about the pick 6, but they were on the 10 about to score when he got hurt, that is more along the lines I was talking about.

      Also to me football is a team sport, you win and lose as a team, it is true that some players contribute more than others, but everything in football is situational, we could have easily lost that game yesterday if our guys would not have stepped up, just like Redskins could have won games if certain plays went their way. Basically I am not considering anything a wash but all I will say is that both guys have talent and both need to develop in various areas.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        The score was 7-7 on a Matt Ryan pick 6 so I wouldn't notch a feather in RG3 cap for that.

        I said this early RG3 has yet to win a game against a decent pass rush and pass defense. This to me isn't suprising at all because he is a rookie but we all need to see growth against teams that actually have a good defense. The same can be said of Luck but he did go against a Vikings team that is underrated IMO and of course the good thing is that RG3 will have to face that same team if he is healthy so atleast a comparable comparsion can be made here.

        Luck has a better defense and RG3 has a top notch rushing attack. Both help to win games so IMO its kind of a wash
        .
        As bad as the Redskins defense is, I wouldn't say the Colts defense is BETTER.

        Comment


        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

          Just last week, RGIII led his team down the field for a game winning drive.

          I just don't see how people think there's a large difference in who's better--on either end. These guys are 4 and 5 games into their careers. RGIII has put up better numbers, but he also has a better team top to bottom. Luck has impressed in other ways, and has shown great poise and leadership in 4th quarters.

          Both guys are good and well on their way to being very good in this league, but I guess I just don't see a gap in talent, ability to win, etc between the two players.

          Comment


          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Exactly, we are talking about the NFL, running or not running a QB can get hit and be out of the game at anytime, that hit Luck took yesterday would have probably take him out the game and maybe the whole week he was just lucky enough that he didn't get hurt.

            I don't get the RG3 hate around here, some of you are proving what I've been saying forever that Irsay was smart enough to bring Luck here because Indiana is still not ready for a QB like RG3, I like both guys and I'm rooting for both of them and I don't see a reason for people not to do the same.
            Its the inevitable Luck vs. RG3 thread. Obviously people want the franchise to have made the right decision and therefore are rooting for our guy. Your "people are not ready for" comment is damn near treading the line of offensive. If it meant what it seems to you just crossed a line, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

            Comment


            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              As bad as the Redskins defense is, I wouldn't say the Colts defense is BETTER.
              Let me argue the point then.

              The Colts defense is better since they have faced better opponents and have given up less points per game than the Redskins. I especially think this is true since the Colts are -4 on the turn over differential and the Redskins are +7. Thats normally not a good indicator of how a defense is performing but despite that fact the Colts have allowed less points.

              Do they still suck at stopping the run? Sure but they are a 100 yards better per game at stopping the pass when compared to the Redskins which is what makes them better overall IMO.

              In any case I think Luck is performing at a higher more mature level than RG3 and this can be seen in third down conversions. Luck is tied at 10th with 42% and RG3 is last in the NFL 32nd at 23%. THey both have seen over 60 3rd downs and that too big of a differential to ignore IMO. Maybe Garcon being hurt is a reason but that shouldn't put someone dead last in the NFL.

              IF anything RG3 should have a better conversion rate since his running game should give him less 3rd and longs which are typically harder to convert.

              So what do we have with RG3 and Luck? Well I would argue despite olblu's post is that we have exactly what we thought we had in both of them. One being a more mature player and the other being a more dynamic athlete who still has a lot to learn.

              FWIW I think Luck needs to learn alot but I think he has proven that he understands the game much better than RG3 at this point.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 10-08-2012, 06:35 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                Its the inevitable Luck vs. RG3 thread. Obviously people want the franchise to have made the right decision and therefore are rooting for our guy. Your "people are not ready for" comment is damn near treading the line of offensive. If it meant what it seems to you just crossed a line, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
                He didn't say "people"..unless I misread...

                He said INDIANA isn't ready for a QB like RGIII. Perhaps he meant the fact that Indiana is more of a traditionalist state--especially in sports.

                For example, most Pacer fans have been clamoring for a "true PG" for years now when a "true PG" hardly even exists within the game anymore.

                The same could be said for football. We've seen Peyton Manning--the ULTIMATE "traditional QB" do his thing for years. If you polled most posters within PD, or most fans in the state, most individuals would clamor for a more traditional QB like Andrew Luck, as opposed to a running QB like Griffin.

                I don't think Vnzla was too far from the truth, but to insinuate that he tried to make this into a completely different issue is not only wrong but brings to question why one would even assume that's what he meant. (especially because he didn't even use the term that you quoted)

                Just my two cents....

                Comment


                • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  Let me argue the point then.

                  The Colts defense is better since they have faced better opponents and have given up less points per game than the Redskins. I especially think this is true since the Colts are -4 on the turn over differential and the Redskins are +7. Thats normally not a good indicator of how a defense is performing but despite that fact the Colts have allowed less points.

                  Do they still suck at stopping the run? Sure but they are a 100 yards better per game at stopping the pass when compared to the Redskins which is what makes them better overall IMO.

                  In any case I think Luck is performing at a higher more mature level than RG3 and this can be seen in third down conversions. Luck is tied at 10th with 42% and RG3 is last in the NFL 32nd at 23%. THey both have seen over 60 3rd downs and that too big of a differential to ignore IMO. Maybe Garcon being hurt is a reason but that shouldn't put someone dead last in the NFL.

                  IF anything RG3 should have a better conversion rate since his running game should give him less 3rd and longs which are typically harder to convert.

                  So what do we have with RG3 and Luck? Well I would argue despite olblu's post is that we have exactly what we thought we had in both of them. One being a more mature player and the other being a more dynamic athlete who still has a lot to learn.

                  FWIW I think Luck needs to learn alot but I think he has proven that he understands the game much better than RG3 at this point.
                  There are plenty of stats that can turn the discussion one way or another. Sure you could use 3rd down conversion %, QBR and success within a two minute drill to show that Luck is better; but you could use turnovers, QB rating, and yards per attempt to show that RGIII is better.

                  Both QB's have led game winning drives in the 4th QTR. Both guys have taken hellacious hits. (though it was AWESOME for Luck to get up and wink at Jerry after he got DRILLED--and bailed out by a lucky unnecessary roughness penalty) and both guys have impressed.

                  I don't want my critical eye to be taken wrongly. I think Luck is VERY good. If i had to choose between the two, I'd choose Luck just because of his moxy and maturity. (he is the ANTI Diva) I just don't think it's as clear cut that Luck is the best and RGIII is just an athlete.

                  Comment


                  • I misquoted but who cares. Is Indiana not a group of people. Are you insinuating the corn is unprepared? Wtf

                    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                      Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                      I misquoted but who cares. Is Indiana not a group of people. Are you insinuating the corn is unprepared? Wtf

                      Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
                      LMAO! My point was that I'm sure he didn't mean it the way you took it. Thats all

                      Comment


                      • My point was to make sure vz understood that his comment could be perceived as a racist remark about the state in which the majority of pacers fans(myself included) live. I also said I would give him the benefit of the doubt implying that he didn't mean it like that.

                        Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                          Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                          My point was to make sure vz understood that his comment could be perceived as a racist remark about the state in which the majority of pacers fans(myself included) live. I also said I would give him the benefit of the doubt implying that he didn't mean it like that.

                          Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
                          It's wasn't a racist remark, my point is that a non traditional QB like RG3 that I think is going to be good but is not ready yet could have a hard time in a place like Indiana, a guy like Luck to me has a longer leash, not only because he is more traditional but because he kinds of looks like Peyton.

                          And also we like or not RG3 is always getting compared to Vick and what's the first thing that comes to people's mind when they think about Vick? dog killer, etc.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                            You should stop. Trust me. I really truly don't think you're trying to portray the folks in Indiana as racist, but whatever it is you're trying to get across is not coming out the way you think it is.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              It's wasn't a racist remark, my point is that a non traditional QB like RG3 that I think is going to be good but is not ready yet could have a hard time in a place like Indiana, a guy like Luck to me has a longer leash, not only because he is more traditional but because he kinds of looks like Peyton.

                              And also we like or not RG3 is always getting compared to Vick and what's the first thing that comes to people's mind when they think about Vick? [BOLD]dog killer, etc.[/BOLD]
                              I know this isn't what you're going for, but the way you laid out your argument, it sounds like you're linking running QBs with dog fighting (which is a huge and incorrect leap to make). That's the only other way it can be perceived other than racist (and I don't think that's what you're going for either). Like travmil said, I suggest not going further down this alley.
                              Never half-a** two things. Whole-a** one thing.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                                Originally posted by CompACE View Post
                                I know this isn't what you're going for, but the way you laid out your argument, it sounds like you're linking running QBs with dog fighting (which is a huge and incorrect leap to make). That's the only other way it can be perceived other than racist (and I don't think that's what you're going for either). Like travmil said, I suggest not going further down this alley.
                                Nope my comparison is that I believe that some people link RG3 with Vick just the same way some people link Troy Murphy to whatever power forward that shoot threes.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X