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

Arians thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Arians thread

    We hired the guy from the CFL known as a offensive guru. I am skeptical he did dominate in Canada but why is he 57 and now only getting his chance? I guess the same thing can be said about BA too he is 60. I really want to like this guy but only time will tell rumor was he was the finalisy and even the favorite for the Colts job last year before they picked Chuck.

    At least BA wont be calling plays for us I hate his play calling I hope this guy is a good play caller rumor is he will be the play caller and that is his strong suit.


    This hire reminds me of Mike McCarthy getting the gig in GB I remember everyone grilled GB because they hired some no named guy over the hot names. I just hope it turns out as well as it did there.


    EDIT: so from reading on the guy seems like his QBS love him but Jerry Rice and Tim Brown though he was a joke back in the 90s. Seems like his strength is protecting the QB with his schemes. His WRs didnt like him because he had them run a lot of slants and inside the #s routes.


    Rice was just on ESPN1000 and said he liked him but was frustrated he didn't get as many touches as he should have. Typical WR diva stuff with how much Marshall and Cutler connect will be interested to see how he likes the coach mid season. But Marshall loves to block and do all the little things so maybe wont be as diva ish as Rice and Brown

    But doing what he did with Rich Gannon is impressive IMO who has a similar skill set to Jay in terms of mobility. The West Coast offense will be interesting for sure what makes me excited is how he turned Ron Garnder into a near pro bowl talent. Matt Forte has to be the happiest guy. As long as the defense is still Ron's and we have this guru calling plays I will be happy go from one of the worst play callers in football Mike Tice to one of the best according to scouts they even compared him to the Hooded one Belichick.

    But Marshall is use to getting beat up with slants and playing in the middle of the field. I like him for the offense with that said we need a good TE. I wanted Dwyane Allen so bad last year in the draft I wanted him in the 1st rd when the process started still cant believe he went in the 3rd. The Colts have a stud TE for a long time great value by the Colts on that one.
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-16-2013, 07:20 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Arians thread

      Originally posted by Strummer View Post
      ESPN is reporting the Eagles are hiring Chip Kelly from Oregon.

      http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/88...eagles-sources
      wow college football is a dirty dirty sport especially all the coaches no ethics.

      this isn't as bad as Saban walking out on his team and Petrino just leaving like the Colts bolted from Baltimore not telling anyone but it's close.
      Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-16-2013, 01:20 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post



        Let's see if you still feel that way in a couple of seasons. I like his player development, but his play calling... 4 wide and an empty backfield on third and 1? That little confidence in your running game? Really!?!? The number of times we used an empty backfield formation on third-and-short is the exact reason he's gone.
        If an opportunity to run arose. Luck is a better option to get a yard than any of our running backs. We did pretty good on third downs btw.


        Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Arians thread

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          wow college football is a dirty dirty sport especially all the coaches no ethics.

          this isn't as bad as Saban walking out on his team and Petrino just leaving like the Colts bolted from Baltimore not telling anyone but it's close.
          Would be nice when someone refers to this story they tell the whole story. The Colts didn't decide just to screw over Baltimore and its fans.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Arians thread

            Jeff Dickerson ‏@ESPNChiBears
            Heard Bruce Arians made a strong push last night before Trestman got the job. Arians went down swinging. #Bears.
            Retweeted by Jeremy Stoltz


            dude even met with Cutler he really wanted the job



            Rumor is the Cards offered him the job , and with how much he wants to be a HC would be really hard to see him turning it down if true.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Arians thread

              I'm not surprised he campaigned hard for the Chicago job. That's a good job. It's a large market with a lot of media attention and a big fan base. Plus he would have had a very talented quarterback.

              His play calling might be questionable, but I'd rather have a guy who filled in for a sick coach and went 9-3 with a rookie quarterback over some CFL no-name.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-16-2013, 06:50 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Arians thread

                So, just because he worked in Canada, he's a no-name? Personally I think it's much better having worked there and also have a huge experience in the NFL as an OC and a coach than having no experience at all in the NFL and getting a job like a certain dude yesterday who got the Eagles job.
                Never forget

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Arians thread

                  Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                  So, just because he worked in Canada, he's a no-name? Personally I think it's much better having worked there and also have a huge experience in the NFL as an OC and a coach than having no experience at all in the NFL and getting a job like a certain dude yesterday who got the Eagles job.

                  I wasn't meaning to insult the CFL or Canada. Maybe this guy will work out just fine for the Bears. But Arians actually coached an NFL team for 75% of the season last year and went 9-3. This was in place of a sick coach and with a rookie quarterback. Clearly he got guys to buy into what he was selling. I'd put a lot of stock in that if I were making the decision, but I didn't do the interviewing. He's worked with Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, and Andrew Luck. I would also like that if I were looking for a coach who I hoped could get more out of Jay Cutler.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Arians thread

                    Thanks for the clarification. It's all about opportunities and how much trust you give to these guys to lead your team. Don't know if the new Bears GM wasn't impressed at all by Arians in the interview or the exact opposite with Trestman or how much the interview itself plays the biggest role but for some reason they couldn't see Arians as the best fit.
                    Never forget

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Arians thread

                      Jacksonville just filled their HC vacancy, so that only leaves Arizona as the only team left with a HC vacancy. They apparently have a lot of interest in Arians. So we'll see.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Arians thread

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Jacksonville just filled their HC vacancy, so that only leaves Arizona as the only team left with a HC vacancy. They apparently have a lot of interest in Arians. So we'll see.
                        I know that you probably have to take any head coaching offer when you're 60 years old and have never coached before. You're not exactly in a position to wait. But that Arizona job isn't very desirable at all, IMO. Bruce seems like he wants a good QB to work with, which is something he wouldn't have there. Plus they have to play four games a year against Seattle and San Francisco. Brutal. Heck, St. Louis didn't look that bad this year. Arizona is easily the worst team in that division. I don't really think the Arians stock is going to drop. People won't forget that he went 9-3 this year, and Luck will probably continue to make him look good next year. He might be better off if he waits a year to see if a better job opens up. That being said, he still probably has to take the Arizona job if it's offered to him. I guess you can't be picky when you're 60 and looking for your first head coaching gig.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Arians thread

                          With all the coaching turnover this season who will be on the hotseat next season for Arians to potentially wait on? Hard to believe any of the new coaches will not at least survive their first season isn't it?
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Arians thread

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            With all the coaching turnover this season who will be on the hotseat next season for Arians to potentially wait on? Hard to believe any of the new coaches will not at least survive their first season isn't it?
                            Jets? Lions? Oakland? Panthers if they disappoint again? It seems there are at least 5 or so firings every year. Some of them are predictable, others are surprises.

                            Schwartz is almost guaranteed to be fired if the Lions miss the playoffs again. That would be a desirable job for Arians with all of the offensive talent. But like I said, when you're 60 years old like Arians and are looking for your first head coaching gig, you can't exactly be picky. You have to take what's offered to you. There might not ever be another offer. I think he's gotta take the Arizona gig if it's offered to him.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Arians thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I wasn't meaning to insult the CFL or Canada. Maybe this guy will work out just fine for the Bears. But Arians actually coached an NFL team for 75% of the season last year and went 9-3. This was in place of a sick coach and with a rookie quarterback. Clearly he got guys to buy into what he was selling. I'd put a lot of stock in that if I were making the decision, but I didn't do the interviewing. He's worked with Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, and Andrew Luck. I would also like that if I were looking for a coach who I hoped could get more out of Jay Cutler.
                              I personally feel Arians did just an okay job as HC this year, he had his head scratches, and could have easily had a record of less than .500. Honestly I think the reason we pulled out so many close games was due to the work that Chuck put in and the mentality that he gave the team during the offseason, having his players in the mindset to never give up.

                              So I guess what I am trying to say is that he may have coached 75% of the games but I do not think the job he did was wonderful in any way, and honestly, I think GM's noticed this as well. How are you the front runner for coach of the year and can't even get a coaching gig in the offseason, some people say fit, but there were way too many jobs open for that to be the reason in my book.

                              I think he offers the most value as a QB coach, and is okay as an OC, and maybe he has what it takes to be a good HC, but he did not show me that in the season.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Arians thread

                                Jets kinda go in the Meh category other than just coaching in NY unless he sees something in their QB situation the rest of the NFL does not. I didn't think about the Raiders but not sure if the QB situation would interest him.

                                But the Lions sure could....
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X