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 Indra View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I think we agree, but we're just misunderstanding each other. I'm saying that Luck is an inch shorter, but his build is bigger. He weighs 5 pounds more, and carries it more athletically than Manning. Luck is much more physically gifted than Manning.
    Yeah, well talk to me about this in ten years, if he lasts ten years..... ...

    Comment


    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      Yeah, well talk to me about this in ten years, if he lasts ten years.
      OK. Go away for 10 years.

      See you October, 2022.

      Comment


      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
        OK. Go away for 10 years.

        See you October, 2022.
        You will get your wish eventually, I will never last ten years..... ...

        Comment


        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          Arm strength? Not gonna touch that, but sounds a lil homerish lol.
          Decision making? How is Luck a better decision maker when he has more turnovers? Doesn't make sense
          Toughness? How do you measure toughness? Bc Griffin got concust and Luck didn't? Lol okay....
          Here are two points I can expand upon. Luck arguably played the best defense in his first game as an NFL QB. He had 2 interceptions since that game and RG3 indeed has less interceptions but he also has more fumbles. Combine that with getting himself hurt and potentially costing the game against the Falcons and I say there about even in costing a game. One turned it over too much in the Bears game and one made a terrible judgement call on a scramble.

          As far as interceptions which have alot to do with just having to throw it more which increases the likely hood of getting picked off. Even with that Lucks INT% is higher than RG3 so obviously he wins out here.

          Decision making can often be displayed by 3rd down conversion rates and Luck smokes RG3 here and it has nothing to do with having more 3rd downs to convert. Just for comparisons sake Luck has increased 3rd down conversion rates by 8 percent compared to last year. RG3 has dropped the Redskins 3rd down conversion rates by 13 percent compared to last year. http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat...conversion-pct

          Luck wins out on comeback wins with 2 so far and would have had a 3rd in the Jags game if it wasn't for the defense much like RG3 would have atleast had a shot at a comeback win in the Rams game. I don't put a ton of stock into this but after the year has ended I think it will be very relevant.

          Now look at the difference between passer rating vs Total QBR (the new rating). Why is there so much of difference? There are many reasons why they are different but one thing to consider how the passer rating is caclulated. The passer rating is flawed in this it will rate a catch of one yard that the reciever turned into 90 yards as credit to the QB. This is noted as RG3 has a career long pass to Garcon for 88 yards which essentially was a 30 yard pass that Garcon turned into a 88 yard touchdown score.

          Does that make sense? So if you calculate RG3 passer rating and adjust it for (yards after the catch) YAC by using Lucks recievers (yac) and RG3's passer rating drops from 101 to 90 which is the same as a Jake Locker.

          So what that tells you is that RG3 recievers generate 340 more recieving yards than Lucks recievers which is the equivalent to an entire game in passing yardage . That my friend is a stat padder and is one of the reasons why RG3 passer rating is inflated.
          http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders...e=NFL&rank=231

          Is Reggie Wayne a secruity blanket? Sure but so is a recieving core that generates 340 more yards after the catch than the Colts wr's.

          Now one of the big reasons you see a drastic difference in Total QBR and passer rating is that it includes many more things than just completion percentage and passing yards.

          IT accounts for rushing yards, sacks, clutch stats that factor in a offensive linemen holding and making a 1st down and 10 a 1st down and 20. The reason why Luck smokes RG3 here is that Lucks overall game is better at the moment.

          As far as toughness goes I think both are tough. Both proved it in college but I won't lie and tell someone 20 lbs doesn't make a difference. Luck has not only taken hits but also generated hits that resulted in a fumble. Personally I could care less because neither are a Jeff George or Jay Cutler types but as far as decsion making goes I hope I made it a little bit more clearer on why I believe Luck is better at the moment.

          Comment


          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            You are the only person who has said that was a cheap shot and deserved a penalty that I have heard. All of the commentators said it was a bad penalty and just a good hit to Luck's chest. However, a couple of more like that or if it had been a head shot and Luck would be done. It is only a matter of time taking that much punishment. Many rookie QBs have been there. Carr, Couch and many others..... ...
            It absolutely was a penalty. Anybody who knows anything about the rules knows that was a penalty. The commentators said it was not a helmet to helmet, but it was indeed spearing. This is just further proof that you have no idea what you're looking at when you watch football.

            Comment


            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              Yeah, well talk to me about this in ten years, if he lasts ten years..... ...
              Nothing I stated has ANYTHING to do with his durability or how good of a quarterback he is. I simply stated he's more athletic and built much more solidly than Manning is. There's nothing to even argue on this point, it's simply the truth and is evident to anyone with eyeballs, which clearly you lack.

              Comment


              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                Even if you don't think the opponents are better or just even then points allowed by both teams still favors the Colts. The turn over differential is a crtical stat IMO. IF you have lose that badly and still give up less points per game I think you have to say that the defense is better.

                Comparing the two.

                Packers (minus greg jennings still have more weapons) vs the Saints (with no coaching staff?)

                Vikings (good run game one stud wr) vs Rams (not much of a running game and some number 2 wrs)

                Jags (this is the only team that is worse offensively) vs. TB ( clear winner in thism mathcup)

                Bears ( good running game and good passing game) vs. Cincy (good passing game with a marginal running game)

                These comparisions are always flawed given that you have teams playing a different number of games and the schedule of the teams vary greatly. For example the Packers are ranked 15th in total points offensively but they also played the 3 top defenses in the league (49ers, Seahawks and the Bears).

                You just have to factor in those type of things when you do those comparisons but at worse you could consider the schedule equal in competition and Colts have still have given up less points overall.

                Edit: The rams are ranked 30th in passing and 22 in rushing. The jags are 32 in passing and 18th in rushing offensively speaking. Those could be consider a wash IMO but you still have Atlanta that the Redskins have played without RG3. The Falcons at this point have a marginal running game with a great passing game.
                Yeah everyone is free to their own opinion, or ways they can reason through stuff, mine just tell me that both have weaknesses and I would not call one better than the other, also a lot depends on who they are matched up against in any given situation.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Yeah everyone is free to their own opinion, or ways they can reason through stuff, mine just tell me that both have weaknesses and I would not call one better than the other, also a lot depends on who they are matched up against in any given situation.
                  I think Colts fans are having a hard time believing that they have a defense that can occasionally stop the run and get the opponent to a 3 and out. I understand since its been a long time since the Colts had a marginally mediocre defense.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    You will get your wish eventually, I will never last ten years..... ...
                    You should really use Michael Cole as you avatar. You behave just like his character on WWE

                    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                      The big lead (blog) adjusted the Total QBR for opponents and Luck is number one overall..

                      http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/...for-opponents/

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I think Colts fans are having a hard time believing that they have a defense that can occasionally stop the run and get the opponent to a 3 and out. I understand since its been a long time since the Colts had a marginally mediocre defense.
                        Not when it matters. Case and point, the Jags game

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                          Not when it matters. Case and point, the Jags game
                          Jag game is one case and GB is another. Holding AP to 60 yards rushing is an improvemnent from last yera and the jags game had alot to do with not having the best corners on the field at that time do to injuries.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            Jag game is one case and GB is another. Holding AP to 60 yards rushing is an improvemnent from last yera and the jags game had alot to do with not having the best corners on the field at that time do to injuries.
                            1 good game and then another good half aren't going to convince anybody.

                            They are improving for sure. But they still aren't good enough to trust just yet.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                              First 4 Games Of Career


                              -------------- Luck ---------------- Peyton

                              Wins ---------- 2-2 ----------------- 0-4

                              Comp % ------ 54.2 ----------------- 55.5

                              Pass YPG ----- 302 ------------------ 248

                              TD-Int ------- 7-5 ------------------ 4-11


                              Luck with a FAR worse surrounding team. What's it mean? I don't know for sure, I'm not nastradumass.

                              I'm pretty sure it means Luck doesn't suck.
                              "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                                Originally posted by Indra View Post
                                It absolutely was a penalty. Anybody who knows anything about the rules knows that was a penalty. The commentators said it was not a helmet to helmet, but it was indeed spearing. This is just further proof that you have no idea what you're looking at when you watch football.
                                It was not spearing and the commentators said it wasn't . It was a hit to the chest plate. There should not have been a penalty and that isn't me talking but everyone on air that I heard comment about it at all..... So, you think I am blind, then you must be deaf not to hear all of that. I agree with them after watching the hit...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X