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

  • Arians thread

    Figured I'd start an Arians thread to track where he might go. I really hope we manage to keep this guy somehow, sort of like how the Pacers were able to keep Brian Shaw after he had so much external interest.

    Arians appeared to be getting the most interest from the Chargers. SD just announced that they hired Mike McCoy as head coach, which takes them off the table for Arians. Possible a good sign he stays?
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

  • #2
    Re: Arians thread

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Figured I'd start an Arians thread to track where he might go. I really hope we manage to keep this guy somehow, sort of like how the Pacers were able to keep Brian Shaw after he had so much external interest.

    Arians appeared to be getting the most interest from the Chargers. SD just announced that they hired Mike McCoy as head coach, which takes them off the table for Arians. Possible a good sign he stays?
    He's got a second interview with the Bears, along with Trestman (rumored favorite) and the Seattle OC. Looks like he isn't under consideration with the Eagles any longer.

    I haven't heard him connected to the Jags or Cardinals, but there are only these 4 openings left.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Arians thread

      If the Bears don't hire him then I'm confident he stays.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Arians thread

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Figured I'd start an Arians thread to track where he might go. I really hope we manage to keep this guy somehow, sort of like how the Pacers were able to keep Brian Shaw after he had so much external interest.

        Arians appeared to be getting the most interest from the Chargers. SD just announced that they hired Mike McCoy as head coach, which takes them off the table for Arians. Possible a good sign he stays?
        He is a finalist for the Bears job he is interviewing with the owners this week. Only 3 finalist narrowed from like 20 people who interviewed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Arians thread

          As long as he doesn't come back to Pittsburgh if Haley gets the Cardinals job. Ben will definitely be campaigning for Bruce, but at this stage Bruce Arians is not good for Ben's career.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Arians thread

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            As long as he doesn't come back to Pittsburgh if Haley gets the Cardinals job. Ben will definitely be campaigning for Bruce, but at this stage Bruce Arians is not good for Ben's career.
            Not sure if he would go back there J. It seems like they left on bad terms and I doubt Irsay would be out spent for his own OC.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Arians thread

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              As long as he doesn't come back to Pittsburgh if Haley gets the Cardinals job. Ben will definitely be campaigning for Bruce, but at this stage Bruce Arians is not good for Ben's career.
              Why would he want to go back to an organization that kicked him out a year ago and take the exact same job that he has in Indy? Plus working with a shinny new toy in Luck is likely a more desirable job than going to a non-playoff team and working with a QB in Ben who likely won't get that much better at this stage of his career.

              The Steelers' decision to kick Arians out looks pretty questionable right now. The Steelers missed the playoffs and Ben seems like he can't stand Haley, while Arians went 9-3 and made the playoffs with a rookie quarterback. There's a reason Ben was ticked about Arians' getting canned.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Arians thread

                Yes, but that reason was because Arians dismantled the running game, which did not sit well with Rooney.

                Tomlin was planning to bring him back last offseason, and subject Ben to even more physical abuse before Rooney put his foot down.

                The offense was considerably better this year through Week #9. Through nine weeks, both our total defense and total offense were in the top-five. Now, our record was poor because of the tunover differential, but the offense was significantly improved even though we still weren't running the ball well.

                Oh yeah, at that point in time Ben took a hit that dislocated a rib above his heart, which was a very significant medical risk (the NFL needs to outlaw all hits to the chest if they're really concerned about player safety!) and our backup QBs stunk and then Ben wasn't really the same when he did come back. No velocity on the ball, especially those misthrown interceptions at the end of the Dallas and Bungles games. So over the last seven weeks, there's no doubt it, our offense was not impressive under any of our QBs.

                I don't think Haley is going anywhere, and he should get at least a full offseason to improve the offense (vs. starting over with somebody else to implement a new offense) before judgment is reached. Because when Ben was healthy, things were going well.

                There are plenty of mixed rumors for whether Ben and Haley are getting along. But the main reason they wouldn't be getting along is that Ben and Arians are BFFs off the field. That wasn't been a healthy working relationship in the latter years of Arian's tenure. If the Rooney's extended an olive branch (and look at the various coaches and players that have returned to Pittsburgh after a short "absence") and Ben/ Tomlin were asking him to come back I think he would consider it.

                Bruce Arians is tremedous at developing young QBs. But he's not a very good play-caller.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Arians thread

                  Not entirely sure Pitt got the Arians thing right anyway. They didn't like him. Arians is proving he's better than what they pegged him for. They didn't even make the playoffs, and the OC they kicked to the curb stepped up as interim for an 11-5 team that far exceeded expectations.

                  Sort of like when Indy fans hated Fangio, and now he's DC for one of the best defenses in teh league. Obviously Indy wasn't using him right. Sometimes teams just don't get it right. I don't believe for a minute that Arians isn't a good resource for a team to have.

                  Besides... he really is an Indy man. I know he went to Pitt for a few years, but I always consider him the guy who mentor'd Manning. Glad he's back home.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-15-2013, 09:02 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


                  • #10
                    Re: Arians thread

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Bruce Arians is tremedous at developing young QBs. But he's not a very good play-caller.
                    Some plays he called this season were head scratching too.
                    Want him to stay with Luck though cause they already have 1 season together under their belt and changing coordinators is not the best thing for a young QB imo.
                    Never forget

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Arians thread

                      I generally agree. But...

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Not entirely sure Pitt got the Arians thing right anyway. They didn't like him.
                      ... you could say that everybody but Dan Rooney really liked him. Tomlin, Ben, the WRs, etc.

                      Arians is proving he's better than what they pegged him for.
                      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.

                      They didn't even make the playoffs, and the OC they kicked to the curb stepped up as interim for an 11-5 team that far exceeded expectations.
                      We missed 78 starter-games to injury this year. We had an MVP-caliber QB through 9 games that missed three starts and was not the same after his return. The two former DPOY starters on our defense combined to miss 12+ games. We had a revolving door at RB, RT, and CB because of injury. Our defense led the league in yards against but merely forced punts and couldn't get sacks or turnovers. I don't think any of that had to do with replacing Arians with Haley. Through the first nine games, we were leading the league in third-down conversion rates on offense (in other words, no empty backfields on third-and-short. Even if we did pass the ball, at least it was conceivable that we might run!! Gasp.) We just weren't a playoff caliber team this year. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

                      Besides... he really is an Indy man. I know he went to Pitt for a few years, but I always consider him the guy who mentor'd Manning. Glad he's back home.
                      If "for a few years", you meant "almost a decade", then okay. When he was previously your QB coach, he didn't call plays. When he went to Cleveland as OC, he was fired for his play calling. Then we hired him as a WR coach, not a QB coach. Then Wiz went to Steelers West and he got promoted to play-caller. And that got him fired again. Almost got him two years ago. He promised Dan that the Steelers would be better at "running the ball when they needed to." And then he completely abandoned the run again.

                      I've got nothing but good things to say about his player development skills. But his play calling... not so good.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Arians thread

                        ESPN says the Bears hired Trestman. They also say Arians didn't make the final three.

                        The Bears were believed to have narrowed their search to three candidates: Trestman, Seattle Seahawks offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell and and Seahawks defensive coordinator Gus Bradley.
                        http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story...man-head-coach

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Arians thread

                          Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                          Some plays he called this season were head scratching too.
                          Want him to stay with Luck though cause they already have 1 season together under their belt and changing coordinators is not the best thing for a young QB imo.
                          That's where I'm at. I want to keep him because he builds up young QBs well and shuffling OCs in and out is obviously bad for a QB. But I don't want him long term, say 3 years maybe.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Arians thread

                            I'd say with SD and Chicago no longer in the running, there's a good chance he stays. And even if he doesn't work out in the long-run for his play-calling, I see nothing wrong with letting him develop Luck a few years. And at that point where Luck needs to go to the next level, we bring in someone else.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Arians thread

                              ESPN is reporting the Eagles are hiring Chip Kelly from Oregon.

                              http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/88...eagles-sources
                              Last edited by Strummer; 01-16-2013, 01:10 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X