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 so far

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

  • Re: Luck so far

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    I mentioned that he outplayed Luck that day

    Not really.

    Ponder: 27-35, 245 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INT

    Luck: 20-31, 224 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INT

    Ponder had a very high completion percentage, but Luck's was still pretty good. And despite completing 7 more passes than Luck, Ponder only threw for 21 more yards. He was throwing a ton of short passes that day and couldn't get the offense going until it was very late in the game. Luck was also constrained by ultra-conservative play calling in the second half that cost him the opportunity to put up even better stats than he did, as well as almost costing the Colts the game.

    And then you consider that Luck was playing his second game EVER whereas Ponder already has a season under his belt.........
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-05-2012, 09:52 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Luck so far

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Not really.

      Ponder: 27-35, 245 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INT

      Luck: 20-31, 224 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INT

      Ponder had a very high completion percentage, but Luck's was still pretty good. And despite completing 7 more passes than Luck, Ponder only threw for 21 more yards. He was throwing a ton of short passes that day and couldn't get the offense going until it was very late in the game. Luck was also constrained by ultra-conservative play calling in the second half that cost him the opportunity to put up even better stats than he did, as well as almost costing the Colts the game.

      And then you consider that Luck was playing his second game EVER whereas Ponder already has a season under his belt.........
      Ponder was dealing with an offense and defense that was committing silly penalties all day. Put down the yards that the Colts got from penalties. That is the only thing that kept them in this game... They got second chances on offense and defense because of them....... Like I said, the Vikings lost, the Colts didn't win anything... ...

      Comment


      • Re: Luck so far

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        Ponder was dealing with an offense and defense that was committing silly penalties all day. Put down the yards that the Colts got from penalties. That is the only thing that kept them in this game... They got second chances on offense and defense because of them....... Like I said, the Vikings lost, the Colts didn't win anything... ...
        Fair enough, Ponder did deal with a lot of penalties. The Vikings had 11 penalties for 105 yards, the Colts had 7 for 51. So I'll give you that the Vikings shot themselves in the foot with penalties.

        However, the next week, the Colts had 11 penalties for 106 yards while the Jags had 6 for 67. It was basically a flip of the Vikings game. So if you're going to say that the Vikings gave that game away due to penalties, then you must also say that the Colts gave the Jags one away in order to remain consistent. Yet I don't see you using the penalties in the Jags game as an excuse for Luck losing like you are with Ponder.

        Comment


        • Re: Luck so far

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Fair enough, Ponder did deal with a lot of penalties. The Vikings had 11 penalties for 105 yards, the Colts had 7 for 51. So I'll give you that the Vikings shot themselves in the foot with penalties.

          However, the next week, the Colts had 11 penalties for 106 yards while the Jags had 6 for 67. It was basically a flip of the Vikings game. So if you're going to say that the Vikings gave that game away due to penalties, then you must also say that the Colts gave the Jags one away in order to remain consistent. Yet I don't see you using the penalties in the Jags game as an excuse for Luck losing like you are with Ponder.
          Yes, I do think the Colts gave away a game they should have won from the Jags. I certainly don't blame that game or really any of the others on Luck. Playing with no offensive line and a weak defense makes life very difficult for him. Before the season started, I had them winning that game against the Jags and losing to the Vikings. It tends to even out. I think the Vikings will lose six games in their own division and I think the Colts may do exactly the same thing unless Houston is so far ahead of everyone and has nothing to play for late in the season. I thought the Colts could win at home against the Jags and Tennessee. I doubt even beating Tennessee here now...... ...

          Comment


          • Re: Luck so far

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            Yes, I do think the Colts gave away a game they should have won from the Jags. I certainly don't blame that game or really any of the others on Luck. Playing with no offensive line and a weak defense makes life very difficult for him. Before the season started, I had them winning that game against the Jags and losing to the Vikings. It tends to even out. I think the Vikings will lose six games in their own division and I think the Colts may do exactly the same thing unless Houston is so far ahead of everyone and has nothing to play for late in the season. I thought the Colts could win at home against the Jags and Tennessee. I doubt even beating Tennessee here now...... ...
            The Vikings have already won one of their six division games. They beat Detroit last week.

            I agree with you about things evening out. The Vikings beat the Jaguars, the Colts beat the Vikings, and the Jaguars beat the Colts.

            Comment


            • Re: Luck so far

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              The Vikings have already won one of their six division games. They beat Detroit last week.

              I agree with you about things evening out. The Vikings beat the Jaguars, the Colts beat the Vikings, and the Jaguars beat the Colts.
              Sorry, I missed that they beat Detroit. I should have known that every team has played a divisional game thus far. I do not think the Vikings will be a .500 team. I know they gave a terrible effort in Indy and shot themselves in the foot over and over again when they could have got the defense off of the field or converted a big third down. They couldn't have been worse and they still had a chance to pull that game out..... ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                Sorry, I missed that they beat Detroit. I should have known that every team has played a divisional game thus far. I do not think the Vikings will be a .500 team. I know they gave a terrible effort in Indy and shot themselves in the foot over and over again when they could have got the defense off of the field or converted a big third down. They couldn't have been worse and they still had a chance to pull that game out..... ...
                Vikes scored two garbage time TDs against our prevent D, the game was a beat-down before that. There is no such thing as a bad win.
                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: Luck so far

                  I can't tell if OlBlu is the biggest troll in the history of the internet, or if those sweet K-Mart shades are because he's legally blind. You haven't stopped to think that perhaps some of Luck's throws are behind target because...oh, I don't know, he has probably the fastest receiving corps in the league? Could it be that he's 3 games into his career and is still getting used to making decisions at an NFL pace, and throwing perfectly to 4.3 receivers? Could his low percentage be because he has two rookie tight ends and three rookie wide receivers? And Donnie Avery who missed a lot of practice time. Could his low percentage be from having one of the worst offensive lines in the league and no threat of a running game? This isn't speculation or opinion, it's fact. You forget that people questioned Rodgers' arm strength coming into the league, and look how that turned out. He floated his fair share of passes, too. I've seen Peyton float plenty of passes. It happens, especially early in a career when the game is just a little bit too fast.

                  You can gush over Bob Griffin all you want, that's fine. But there's a reason Luck was the unanimous #1 pick two years in a row, considered the most NFL ready quarterback to come out since Elway, and has already made all the NFL throws a quarterback is required to make with precision and zip. It's because he's the real deal, and everyone else is right about him and you aren't.
                  Last edited by Indra; 10-06-2012, 12:26 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by Indra View Post
                    I can't tell if OlBlu is the biggest troll in the history of the internet, or if those sweet K-Mart shades are because he's legally blind. You haven't stopped to think that perhaps some of Luck's throws are behind target because...oh, I don't know, he has probably the fastest receiving corps in the league? Could it be that he's 3 games into his career and is still getting used to making decisions at an NFL pace, and throwing perfectly to 4.3 receivers? Could his low percentage be because he has two rookie tight ends and three rookie wide receivers? And Donnie Avery who missed a lot of practice time. Could his low percentage be from having one of the worst offensive lines in the league and no threat of a running game? This isn't speculation or opinion, it's fact. You forget that people questioned Rodgers' arm strength coming into the league, and look how that turned out. He floated his fair share of passes, too. I've seen Peyton float plenty of passes. It happens, especially early in a career when the game is just a little bit too fast.

                    You can gush over Bob Griffin all you want, that's fine. But there's a reason Luck was the unanimous #1 pick two years in a row, considered the most NFL ready quarterback to come out since Elway, and has already made all the NFL throws a quarterback is required to make with precision and zip. It's because he's the real deal, and everyone else is right about him and you aren't.
                    Hey!!!! ... Lets dispell two things you say here right now. First, RGIII has already proven that he is far more NFL ready that Luck. He has a QB rating of over 100, led his team to two wins and show a cannon of an arm that can make all of the plays. Second, Luck hasn't made all of the throws. He throws behind receivers all of the time and Reggie ain't close to 4.3 time. He also floats the long ball consistently and that is why he got picked off so much in Chicago and it will happen again against Green Bay. You are not NFL ready if you throw behind receivers and you cannot deliver that long ball. He may still be a good QB eventually but I don't see him ever being a top ten QB. I am not alone in these thoughts. I get PM from folks who see the same things but don't want to take the abuse fan nation dishes out when someone suggests their number one pick may not be what they think he is...... ...
                    Last edited by OlBlu; 10-06-2012, 09:09 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      Hey!!!! ... Lets dispell two things you say here right now. First, RGIII has already proven that he is far more NFL ready that Luck. He has a QB rating of over 100, led his team to two wins and show a cannon of an arm that can make all of the plays. Second, Luck hasn't made all of the throws. He throws behind receivers all of the time and Reggie ain't close to 4.3 time. He also floats the long ball consistently and that is why he got picked off so much in Chicago and it will happen again against Green Bay. You are not NFL ready if you throw behind receivers and you cannot deliver that long ball. He may still be a good QB eventually but I don't see him ever being a top ten QB. I am not alone in these thoughts. I get PM from folks who see the same things but don't want to take the abuse fan nation dishes out when someone suggests their number one pick may not be what they think he is...... ...
                      First we had all the experts who said that Luck was not a NFL QB who remain unnamed other than Simms and Parcels and now we have the phantom PMers who agree with OlBlu but don't want to take the abuse of stating their opinions on an opinion board. That's rich! Truthfully Luck hasn't done anything yet that we could state at this time he will be terrible, average, or a superstar. The same goes for RGIII. We don't know what kind of players they will become and have you ever heard the word improvement (read Eli here). It occurs when a player learns his profession over time under new circumstances. I am not concerned with Luck's skills regardless of his rating. If you want to compare Luck and RG then throw in last season records of the two respective teams, compare what RG has to work with and what Luck has to work with, and try to make a half way fair comparison. What RG has proved so far is that he has better tools to work with than Luck.
                      Last edited by speakout4; 10-06-2012, 12:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck so far

                        All Colts related discussion on PD has been completely ruined. What a shame.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          First we had all the experts who said that Luck was not a NFL QB who remain unnamed other than Simms and Parcels and now we have the phantom PMers who agree with OlBlu but don't want to take the abuse of stating their opinions on an opinion board. That's rich! Truthfully Luck hasn't done anything yet that we could state at this time he will be terrible, average, or a superstar. The same goes for RGIII. We don't know what kind of players they will become and have you ever heard the word improvement (read Eli here). It occurs when a player learns his profession over time under new circumstances. I am not concerned with Luck's skills regardless of his rating. If you want to compare Luck and RG then throw in last season records of the two respective teams, compare what RG has to work with and what Luck has to work with, and try to make a half way fair comparison. What RG has proved so far is that he has better tools to work with than Luck.
                          I'll tell you one area where Luck certainly leads the League. Excuse makers. Luck has more people making excuses for his short floating passes, throwing behind receivers and general mediocrity than possibly any NFL player in history. You right about the better tools that RGIII has though and that number one tool is his arm..... ...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck so far

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            All Colts related discussion on PD has been completely ruined. What a shame.
                            If you are talking about me and I suspect that you are, there is no need for it. I don't want to deal with people who don't want to see my posts or hear what I have to say about the team. Put me on ignore, it is a simple solution. There is always a sect of people who just don't want to hear anything other than rah, rah for my team. Well, I am not a cheerleader and I never have been. I have been interested in the Colts for about 50 years. I have seen players like Luck come and go through all of those years. There is always the next big thing. The fact is, the Colts bought into the most overhyped player in NFL history and his play doesn't match his reputation. It is as simple as that. RGIII, on the other hand, has matched the big reputation and he has exceeded it with his play. That won't stop. He will get better too and he is starting from way ahead of the unfortunately named Mr. Luck. ...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck so far

                              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                              I'll tell you one area where Luck certainly leads the League. Excuse makers. Luck has more people making excuses for his short floating passes, throwing behind receivers and general mediocrity than possibly any NFL player in history. You right about the better tools that RGIII has though and that number one tool is his arm..... ...
                              Blah blah blah
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • Blu, not as simple as that, it's just your opinion, and a very incorrect one. You don't know what to look for in a QB, you're too enamored by the Bob Griffin hype.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-07-2012, 02:36 PM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X