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 vs Rams Post Game Thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

    That's the crazy thing. To me it's still wide open. I think any team that makes the playoffs this year could win it all.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

      We already said we know the line is bad. You guys acting like you see football on some different Jedi level is getting old...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Yeah, that's it. Guess this needs to be posted, again.


        http://www.stampedeblue.com/2013/11/...with-the-colts

        Trent can't even get back to the LOS before there is contact, usually from mutliple defenders, but yeah, it's Trent's fault because he's such a weak runner.


        Some of you guys seriously need to go watch some Balt. Ravens games this year and ask yourself, did Ray Rice suddenly become someone different or does the 5 men upfront have something to do with his struggles? His yards per carry has almost been cut in half.

        I'm not saying that it's entirely his fault. I would give fairly equal blame to T-Rich/offensive line/play calling. But the guy just looks slow and unable to make something out of nothing like a good RB can. So far, we have been fleeced in that deal. In 7 games with the Colts, I see nothing from Richardson that even remotely resembles the performance Bradshaw turned in against San Francisco behind virtually the same line T-Rich has been behind all season. A really good running back can compensate at times for a bad line.

        I've only watched 2 or 3 Ravens games this year, but Ray Rice suddenly becoming different isn't very hard to believe. He had the absolute hell ran out of him from 09-12. Keep in mind that they had multiple playoff runs and play in the hard hitting NFC North. That has all added up on his body. He is an old 26. Sometimes running backs can crumble overnight. Look at LaDanian Tomlinson or Shaun Alexander.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          We already said we know the line is bad. You guys acting like you see football on some different Jedi level is getting old...
          Thinking a back can overcome multiple defenders in the back field each week is getting just as old.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

            Does this mean Khaled Holmes will be active to play backup center?


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              But the guy just looks slow.
              Any running back that is constantly getting hit in the backfield is going to look slow. The guy can barely get back to to the LOS, which is 6 yards in front of him, so there is literally no room to get up to speed.

              What running back is good enough to evade multiple tacklers in the backfield, and pick up chunks of postiive yardage each run? Are there any?
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                New Orleans also has an insane offense.

                I think the insane amount of injuries league wide to key players has watered stuff down.

                The Pats were without Gronk for the first 6 weeks and Amendola was hurt. Their offense struggled, though they kept winning.

                Green Bay is now without Rodgers and Cobb. Plus Clay Matthews was hurt.

                Atlanta lost Julio Jones while Roddy White has been a hobbled corpse all season.

                The Colts have a nice record, but they've been slammed by brutal injuries to key offensive starters.

                The Steelers got old while the Ravens lost virtually everyone from that Super Bowl team outside of Flacco and Rice.

                The Texans turned into a complete massacre overnight.

                San Francisco is 6-3, but Kaepernick has become Krapernick.

                Kind of a weird season. I don't know what will happen.
                Well the Texans rise at all was kind of a symptom of the league slowly watering down. The team never really got any better, everyone else just got worse.


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Look at LaDanian Tomlinson or Shaun Alexander.
                  It took Shaun Alexander 3 years to slip down to 2.2 ypc, which is where Ray Rice is at within one year.
                  LaDanian's worst performance was 3.3.

                  Either of those would be a vast improvment over what Rice as done.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                    Let me get this out of the way on Monday, so we don't have to talk about it again on Friday.

                    The Colts offensive line sucks. Richardson isn't going to get much and Luck is going to have a bunch of hurries/knockdowns/sacks. This is it folks. It's not going to get any better until some injuries get healed, new linemen are brought in, or both.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Thinking a back can overcome multiple defenders in the back field each week is getting just as old.
                      I'm not saying it's a good situation and nobody here is. I think that SOME of the time he should be able to make something happen out of it regardless. Is he going to be consistently successful the way things are? Of course not, no RB could. But lots of running backs do continue to make plays in spite of bad lines in front of them. Some do it a lot. T-Rich never does it. To the point that we should just stop handing him the ball. But the Colts still do.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                        Originally posted by travmil View Post
                        But lots of running backs do continue to make plays in spite of bad lines in front of them. Some do it a lot. T-Rich never does it. To the point that we should just stop handing him the ball. But the Colts still do.
                        Let's get some names. I've provided examples of good running backs going from great to horrible within a year, because their offensive line changed.

                        It's a lot easier said than done. I don't think any back in the NFL can produce with getting hit in the backfield so much. It's nearly impossible.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          It took Shaun Alexander 3 years to slip down to 2.2 ypc, which is where Ray Rice is at within one year.
                          LaDanian's worst performance was 3.3.

                          Either of those would be a vast improvment over what Rice as done.
                          YPC is important, but it's just one stat. Being healthy and able to carry a huge workload over an entire season is also important, and both LT and Alexander fell off the map pretty quickly, especially Alexander.

                          Alexander had 1880 yards in 2005 with a 5.1 YPC. The next year he only played in 10 games, had 896 yards, and the YPC fell to 3.6. In 2007, his final year, he played in 13 games, had 716 yards with a solid 3.5 YPC, but he was only averaged 16 carries a game compared to carrying it in the mid 20's pe game like he did in his prime. The guy basically fell of the map overnight.

                          LT was probably a bit more of a stretch on my part, but it was still a pretty quick downfall. Absolute freak in 06 and 07. Still pretty great in 08. But in 09, he only totaled 730 yards on about 16 attempts per game. Still had a good YPC, but he quickly became a guy who could no longer handle a super intense workload like he did just two years earlier.

                          I'm not saying that it's all Rice's fault, but it's not hard to believe that he's fallen off.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                            So rushing for nearly 900 yards in just a bit over half a season is "crumbling" to you? Wow. Obviously it's not on the same level as the previous year, but it's a pretty good season for someone that is supposedly washed up. To put that in perspective, that's on pace for 1400 yards over a full season.

                            And the reason he wasn't used, isn't because he suddenly dropped off, it's beause he had fracture in his foot.
                            http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2602571
                            Last edited by Since86; 11-11-2013, 01:16 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So rushing for nearly 900 yards in just a bit over half a season is "crumbling" to you? Wow.

                              Lol, yes, in the context of what they had been, i.e. the best running backs of their era like Rice has been over the prior four seasons. I'm comparing them to their own standards.

                              Look at what Alexander did in 2005 and then compare that to 2006 and 2007. If that's not crumbling to you, then I guess the only thing that would count as crumbling is if he would have retired after 2005.

                              LT was still good, but he quickly became a guy who could no longer handle an intense workload.

                              The idea that Rice is fading after having the absolute hell beat out of him for four long years is hardly surprising.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Obviously it's not on the same level as the previous year, but it's a pretty good season for someone that is supposedly washed up. To put that in perspective, that's on pace for 1400 yards over a full season.

                                And the reason he wasn't used, isn't because he suddenly dropped off, it's beause he had fracture in his foot.
                                http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2602571
                                I'll repost this as I edited it originally.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X