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-Bears

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

  • Re: Colts-Bears

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    RGIII brought it today, and took it to the Saints. RGIII 1 Luck 0
    Didn't know Griffin and Luck were competing against each other?
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • Re: Colts-Bears

      Lol, Luck will be fine, the sillyheads come out en masse after Sundays like this. The biggest issue with 90% of fans is they don't know how to look past stats and immediacy rather than context and skillsets. Luck has a stronger skillset than RG3... but he has a much worse team, specifically the O-line situation. Luck played a much tougher defense, also. RG3 has an actual running game. Put a rookie behind an awful o-line and make him throw against a top 3 defense, and without any semblance of a running game, on the road... and he's going to struggle. Put a different rookie behind a wall of an o-line, throwing against a very suspect pass defense, and also give him a good running game, and he's going to look like Dan Marino, even on the road.

      That's the context... that's the reality.

      Voila --- Colts blowout, Luck "struggles", and RG3 looks like the next coming after 1 week. Nothing against RG3, he did great, I've never said he wasn't going to be good, but I still don't believe for one second he's a better quarterback than Andrew Luck. Stick Luck on that same 'Skins team and the score would have been even more lop-sided, and you all know that.

      Lemme make a lil prediction for ya this next week --- The Colts and Luck will look much better against the Vikes, but the 'Skins will smash the Rams because the Rams look awful, so the RG3 train will roll on. The 'Skins are 3X the team the Rams are. The Colts and Vikes are... even? I think Indy may be slightly better, but since the Colts faced a much harder opponent in week 1 and the Vikes beat the poopy Jags (who I think are worse than Indy), the Vikes have a win right now and the Colts do not, so therefore they are underdogs.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-10-2012, 10:23 AM.
      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-Bears

        I'd like to reiterate that Luck wasn't half bad in this game. 300 yards against that Bears' D basically from his back all game and with defenders draped all over him and an average of about .5 second to get a pass off with no help except Reggie Wayne is a more impressive offensive feat than RG3 directing traffic with that wall of an o-line, group of receivers and backs against a very suspect Saints' D. He moved the ball very effectively on a number of drives with a bunch of rookies and low-experience players. Four redzone appearances. Vinatieri missed a f'n FG, he threw a TD, he had another intercepted in the end zone. The score easily could have been a little different.

        He made a rookie mistake in the endzone and threw the INT --- that was 1 foot from being a TD. He also had 1 ******** interception that should've been a Bears' offsides. He was a hair away from having a 2-1 TD/Int ratio today, to go with likely nearly 350 yards. Against that Bears' D. It was not a bad effort at all. He just learned a valuable lesson about the speed of the NFL --- he's gotta throw it harder. And he will. But the big issue today was that our overall team talent was exposed. We're a bunch of rookies and 2nd-teamers. What do you expect when we have $40 mill in dead cap space this year and underwent a complete top-to-bottom overhaul?

        Been saying it all along --- it's not a logical comparison to make between Luck and RG3 this year, they have drastically different teams. Next year is when Indy will start to turn heads, that's when we'll have 1 year of experience under our belt, that $40mill in dead cap space comes alive, we'll have 1 more draft and this team will start to shape up. 6 wins tops this year, maybe not even that, that's what we're dealing with. 'Skins are a playoff team.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-10-2012, 10:41 AM.
        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-Bears

          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          RGIII brought it today, and took it to the Saints. RGIII 1 Luck 0
          I think most people knew that RG3 was going to have a pretty good season compared to Luck given the teams that they play on.

          BTW I am still sticking to the prediction that RG3 gets himself hurt by the end of the year.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts-Bears

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            I think most people knew that RG3 was going to have a pretty good season compared to Luck given the teams that they play on.

            BTW I am still sticking to the prediction that RG3 gets himself hurt by the end of the year.
            I'm still sticking to the prediction that RG3 is going to be better than Luck, RG3 just throws the ball way harder than Luck and is more athletic, Luck is still going to be good but RG3 has the potential to be the face of the NFL for a long time.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Colts-Bears

              Luck is the real deal. An impressive debut for having even less protection and fewer options to throw to than Peyton may ever have had in his career here.

              With that said, the need for improvement of the line is so plain and so frustrating to watch that it has to wear on the players themselves. To know that the pocket will collapse more often than not, that passes will constantly be underthrown due to Luck having to throw across his body or off his back foot, or overthrown due to not being given the time to properly gauge the required distance / overcompensating for the anticipated hit, and to know that there is, as usual, no hope of a running game for balance must be devastating.

              As the Colts improve this year, so will everyone else. If the Colts win more than a couple of games due to being overlooked on the schedule I will be shocked. Luck will need to go to a hurryup offense and make multiple big quick strike plays in a given game due to the relentless pressure that every team in the league will focus directly on him for the Colts to have any hope of winning any games, period IMO.

              Go Peyton!

              Comment


              • Re: Colts-Bears

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I'm still sticking to the prediction that RG3 is going to be better than Luck, RG3 just throws the ball way harder than Luck and is more athletic, Luck is still going to be good but RG3 has the potential to be the face of the NFL for a long time.
                Your judge of talent has never been top-notch, lol. Let's see... who's more flashy, charismatic, stat-based, and had the better game yesterday -- that's the guy vnzla is probly gonna go with. Just sayin'. Monta Ellis. Hoppin' on the RG3 wagon after yesterday is kinda lame, where were you before that when Luck outplayed him thoroughly all preseason?

                Throwing the ball harder is for Jay Cutler, you know, that perennial SuperBowl winn--- Oh wait, he's Jay Cutler, he doesn't do **** with his rocket arm.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-10-2012, 11:16 AM.
                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-Bears

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  I'd like to reiterate that Luck wasn't half bad in this game. 300 yards against that Bears' D basically from his back all game and with defenders draped all over him and an average of about .5 second to get a pass off with no help except Reggie Wayne is a more impressive offensive feat than RG3 directing traffic with that wall of an o-line, group of receivers and backs against a very suspect Saints' D. He moved the ball very effectively on a number of drives with a bunch of rookies and low-experience players. Four redzone appearances. Vinatieri missed a f'n FG, he threw a TD, he had another intercepted in the end zone. The score easily could have been a little different.

                  He made a rookie mistake in the endzone and threw the INT --- that was 1 foot from being a TD. He also had 1 ******** interception that should've been a Bears' offsides. He was a hair away from having a 2-1 TD/Int ratio today, to go with likely nearly 350 yards. Against that Bears' D. It was not a bad effort at all. He just learned a valuable lesson about the speed of the NFL --- he's gotta throw it harder. And he will. But the big issue today was that our overall team talent was exposed. We're a bunch of rookies and 2nd-teamers. What do you expect when we have $40 mill in dead cap space this year and underwent a complete top-to-bottom overhaul?

                  Been saying it all along --- it's not a logical comparison to make between Luck and RG3 this year, they have drastically different teams. Next year is when Indy will start to turn heads, that's when we'll have 1 year of experience under our belt, that $40mill in dead cap space comes alive, we'll have 1 more draft and this team will start to shape up. 6 wins tops this year, maybe not even that, that's what we're dealing with. 'Skins are a playoff team.
                  I think that's the thing that people aren't considering. RGIII had a running game that ran the ball 44 TIMES-- for 153 yards. The Colts ran the ball just 15 times for - 63 yards. Also, the Skins forced 3 turnovers, which gave the Skins a shorter field. This isn't to take away from Griffin, he played GREAT! He connected deep with Garcon, he didn't turn the ball over, and he was able to move the chains on 3rd and 5 and 6.

                  Meanwhile, Luck didn't look very good. A few of his passes sailed, he threw costly INT's, and he showed that we may need to stay away from throwing the deep out until he perfects the timing of the play because right now, everytime he throws it, it looks like it could be a pick-six.

                  Luck was also running for his life, and was trailing a lot of the game. Our kicker missed a short FG that would've given us momentum going into the half (would have been just a 7 point game) I don't believe in the whole "he's a gamer" because he got up following a few hits. Every player does that lol. But he definitely continued to play confidently and didn't look rattled, though he did look frustrated and a bit confused.

                  With that said, you can't compare the two players because their teams are so drastically different. The skins look like a potential 7-9 win team (depending on their ability to win close games) while the Colts look like a 4-6 win team--depending on the way we manage the easier part of our schedule.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts-Bears

                    Ya, Griffin had time to setup, survey the field and step into his throws... I can't name a single time Luck could do that.

                    I'm still hoping that our line makes big strides as the year goes on. Logic says that they will.... it's the one unit that takes the longest to gel, it's very complicated in the schemes. We have a lot of new guys and they aren't even caught up in the schemes yet or familiar with each other, so as they go they should start to smooth things out. They may never be a pro-bowl level line, but I'm hoping by the end of the season taht Luck at least has a chance to actually setup and survey and step into a proper throw 50% of the time, and maybe even open some running lanes, which further opens up our passing game. Seriously, yesterday, Luck had nothing to work with, they could just throw everyone back in coverage because they had no respect for our running game at all. Just compounded the situation. I'm still amazed that Luck had 300 yards and actually got into the red zone four times... that's actually astounding the more I think about it.

                    It's pretty obvious now though that this next off-season, our focus will be almost entirely on the lines in the draft and free agency. We were man-handled pretty good on both sides, less so on the defensive side, but it still needs addressing.
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-10-2012, 11:22 AM.
                    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-Bears

                      Consider this

                      Last year the Redskins defeated the NY Giant's in their first game of the season last year 28-14.

                      Rex Grossman threw for 305 while Eli Manning threw for 268 yards 0TD and 1 INT.

                      All I'm saying is it's early.....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts-Bears

                        I'm actually sort of glad that Luck has had to face some really stiff defenses to start his career off... it should raise his level of play, gives him an idea how tough it can actually be. I'd rather that, than he face 5-6 weak Ds to start off with and set his bar lower and then when we face a real D he is completely dumbfounded. He's getting a baptism of fire for sure, but so did Manning. I think it works out better in the long run.
                        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-Bears

                          They just showed on ESPN two of Lucks interceptions and he had more than enough time to throw the ball, he made a mistake in one and wasn't able to throw it that far on the other pick.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts-Bears

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I'm still sticking to the prediction that RG3 is going to be better than Luck, RG3 just throws the ball way harder than Luck and is more athletic, Luck is still going to be good but RG3 has the potential to be the face of the NFL for a long time.
                            Its alright to think RG3 is going to be good or even better than Luck but at this point one game or even one season won't tell the whole story. I think RG3 has a good chance to get hurt especially if Washington is going to allow him to run.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts-Bears

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              Its alright to think RG3 is going to be good or even better than Luck but at this point one game or even one season won't tell the whole story. I think RG3 has a good chance to get hurt especially if Washington is going to allow him to run.
                              To me Luck has a bigger chance in getting hurt with that crappy OL he has to protect him, and also people think that RG3's game is equal to Vicks but is not, RG3 is a better thrower and he is a better pocket QB than people think, his game is throw first and run last.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts-Bears

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                To me Luck has a bigger chance in getting hurt with that crappy OL he has to protect him, and also people think that RG3's game is equal to Vicks but is not, RG3 is a better thrower and he is a better pocket QB than people think, his game is throw first and run last.
                                If they do design run plays for RG3 then he will be both a running back and a pocket passer. Thats just the way they want to play it right now which is fine but given that meh defense of the Saints I don't think to make any predictions of his greatness right now. IF he does well against the Atlanta or the Steelers then i will be impressed but until then I won't know how he does with pressure in his face.

                                I still think he is going to be good though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X