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-Titans

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

  • Re: Colts-Titans

    So I'm ridiculous because I support a Colt. Because I know he's having a bigger impact than people realize. And because Donald Brown is Donald Brown. It's not a love fest. I just know that a lot of you are making some unwise statements right now. I never said DBrown does not deserve touches. But there is more to this than "TRich sucks and D Brown is awesome. "
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts-Titans

      Brown is quicker that TRich so he can get through the holes quicker than TRich.
      Smothered Chicken!

      Comment


      • Re: Colts-Titans

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        So I'm ridiculous because I support a Colt. Because I know he's having a bigger impact than people realize. And because Donald Brown is Donald Brown. It's not a love fest. I just know that a lot of you are making some unwise statements right now. I never said DBrown does not deserve touches. But there is more to this than "TRich sucks and D Brown is awesome. "

        The defending of Richardson is kinda ridiculous. So far he has showed absolutely nothing. He has so far shown he is average in the qualities needed by a RB. Average speed, poor to average acceleration, poor vision. I'll give you he's good in catching the ball and better than Brown in blocking.

        He runs behind a bad line for the best part of the snaps but you'd think he would have showed at least once a bit of his special talent he supposedly has. None so far.

        And please stop branding us like we only watch Brown and Rich's ypc or we support our arguments by simply saying that the latter sucks.
        Never forget

        Comment


        • Re: Colts-Titans

          T-Rich is just slow. He takes forever to change directions and is just slower at hitting holes than Brown. By no means am I laying all of the blame on him, but he just doesn't add anything. Bradshaw added something in his short time here. Brown added something last night. Is T-Rich really just that unlucky that he can't ever have a good game?

          It was nice to see T-Rich get involved in the passing game, but you know he's rarely going to break anything. Brown at least as a chance to break it.

          In a perfect world, Ballard and Bradshaw would have remained healthy all season and we don't do that trade. But it is what it is. I've been a huge Grigs fan because he has obviously built a solid roster in a very short amount of time, but it's looking like he got fleeced big time on that trade.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts-Titans

            Apparently Luck changed his usual tune during the break

            "It was to a whole new level," punter Pat McAfee said. "Normally, he has a calming presence, meaning we know what we have to do to win the game. This was a different Andrew."

            "He had that look in his eye," Colts defensive lineman Cory Redding said. "He basically told the team to jump on his back. He really got caught up today when he was talking to us. He challenged everybody to fight and go out there and win this game. You like to hear that from your leader."
            Brought to you by your favourite beat writer Mike Wells

            http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis...ts-at-halftime
            Never forget

            Comment


            • Re: Colts-Titans

              The defending of him by me is no less annoying than the incessant TRich sucks statements.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts-Titans

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                He improved only after TRich got here. Mark my words, he is benefiting from TRich right now. The looks and formations favor him. Trent gets all the poorly executed power sets and Brown gets all the receiver sets where defenses sag in pass to account for Luck. It's almost like using the analogy of the run setting up the play action, except they're using Trent to set up the big chunks for DBrown. It's working. The line seems better at the non power set schemes. Couple all this with Brown actually staying healthy and running with confidence and it paints a somewhat inaccurate picture if you're not reading it correctly.

                We're winning though. Our power set run blocking has to improve. Trent looks better in pass protection and receiving than Brown.

                Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                I think their roles have been changing as the season is going along though and that dismissal of Brown's production is becoming less and less true.

                In fact, I think their roles were flip flopped last night. Brown was the one in on 2nd and 3rd and short (Brown was 2 for 4 on those runs, Richardson was 0 for 1). Brown got all three red zone carries. Brown was the one who had the majority of the carries in the power run set the Colts went into at the end of the game. For Brown to average 5.7 a carry with so many of his carries coming in those situations, it was his best day of the year. In fact, he looked exactly liked I hoped Richardson would. He found some tiny holes, burst through them, and then was able to at least drag the first tackler for a couple yards if not shake him off entirely. Half of Brown's runs went for 6 yards or more including two for TD's.

                Richardson meanwhile was the player who the Colts were trying to run plays for to get him in space. And that seems like a good role for him. He did nothing special with those plays, but he caught the ball and did what was asked of him.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts-Titans

                  Like I posted earlier in this thread, we have been outscored 66-9 in the last three first halves. That is just a hideous that falls on everyone's shoulders: coaches, players, etc. I would say that the Reggie Wayne absence has certainly played a major factor in the offense starting slow, though we seemed to have those problems even before he went down. Anyway, this problem needs to be fixed very soon. We can catch up against the Texans and Jaguars, and we've even shown that we can catch up against great teams, but it's still a recipe for disaster in the playoffs.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts-Titans

                    Give Da Rick Rogers a chance, coaches. Loved how they only used Brazill and Hilton in the second half if I am not mistake. DHB was nowhere to be seen and deservedly so. Only good thing about him is we signed him on a one year deal. Good riddance next offseason.
                    Never forget

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts-Titans

                      The OLine can pull? Wow, I seriously thought they were cemented into the ground.

                      Thank God for some new play calling during that second half. Hopefully this is signs to come.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts-Titans

                        During the post game interview Pagano referred to DHB as their only injury of concern.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts-Titans

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          The defending of him by me is no less annoying than the incessant TRich sucks statements.
                          And as someone who has defended Donald Brown for almost five years, its funny how many people suddenly love him. As I half joked before, let's give Trent as many chances and years as Donald had here...
                          Edit Signature

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts-Titans

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            He improved only after TRich got here. Mark my words, he is benefiting from TRich right now. The looks and formations favor him. Trent gets all the poorly executed power sets and Brown gets all the receiver sets where defenses sag in pass to account for Luck. It's almost like using the analogy of the run setting up the play action, except they're using Trent to set up the big chunks for DBrown. It's working. The line seems better at the non power set schemes. Couple all this with Brown actually staying healthy and running with confidence and it paints a somewhat inaccurate picture if you're not reading it correctly.

                            We're winning though. Our power set run blocking has to improve. Trent looks better in pass protection and receiving than Brown.

                            Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                            That last drive of the Colts where they ran the ball almost every down does not fit your scenario. The Titans knew a run was coming and the Colts still kept moving the ball. Richardson does not follow his lead blocker well and seems to have a hard time finding the hole that develops. I think it is something he has to learn. I believe he can do it. That being said Brown has more burst once he enters the hole made for him. I think Trent and Richardson are good for each other. I would like to see more passes out of the single backfield of Richardson and also maybe they need that extra tackle in there when he is running like they did last night with Brown.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts-Titans

                              Originally posted by owl View Post
                              That last drive of the Colts where they ran the ball almost every down does not fit your scenario. The Titans knew a run was coming and the Colts still kept moving the ball. Richardson does not follow his lead blocker well and seems to have a hard time finding the hole that develops. I think it is something he has to learn. I believe he can do it. That being said Brown has more burst once he enters the hole made for him. I think Trent and Richardson are good for each other. I would like to see more passes out of the single backfield of Richardson and also maybe they need that extra tackle in there when he is running like they did last night with Brown.
                              The run scheme was different all night. Maylock pointed out McGlynn pulling, but they had linemen pulling all night all over the place. That is something that they weren't doing. The line looked good getting out and moving. They were able to get into the second level and put some hurting on the LBs.

                              That first Brown TD, they could have driven a truck through that initial hole. I really liked how they threw the ball on some 3rd and shorts, instead of just being bullheaded and running. Pep did a much better job play calling last night.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts-Titans

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                The OLine can pull? Wow, I seriously thought they were cemented into the ground.

                                Thank God for some new play calling during that second half. Hopefully this is signs to come.
                                I saluted Pep for dropping DHB and putting Brazill in his place. Turned out, DHB got injured...Ahhhh, that makes sense.

                                His playcalling though was good nonetheless. Loved the Fleener play.
                                Never forget

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X