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

    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
    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.

    Fleener is proving to be a pretty good draft pick. This guy just keeps growing on me.

    The Allen injury gets a bit overshadowed by the injuries to the running backs and Reggie, but losing him was a big loss too. I can't wait for next year when we can run some nasty 2 TE sets with Fleener and Allen. Add Hilton, a hopefully healthy Reggie, hopefully a FA WR, and hopefully an improved O-Line for a better running game, and this could be one nasty offense, especially when you factor in Luck's continued growth.

    The fact that we're sitting at 7-3 with all of these injuries is a testament to the stability of our team and young quarterback. This team always finds ways to win. There is still a lot to work on, but 7-3 is 7-3 and we are going to win the division and host a playoff game. Can't ask for much more than that right now.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts-Titans

      Fleener has been playing well and needs to continue to play well, but man do I miss Allen. He's just so good and so well-rounded
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts-Titans

        Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
        Fleener has been playing well and needs to continue to play well, but man do I miss Allen. He's just so good and so well-rounded
        I agree. It's hard not to think about just how good this offense could be if healthy.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts-Titans

          T Rich is outstanding at putting defenses asleep. Once Brown enters the game, defenses are caught off guard by how fast Donald runs. Because of this, Richardson has to remain the starter
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • Re: Colts-Titans

            Originally posted by Natston View Post
            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...
            I don't think people suddenly love him. It's just that he's being compared to Trent Richardson, who has been pretty bad so far. Trent will get his chances going forward. The team isn't going throw him by the wayside.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts-Titans

              Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
              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.
              This is honestly my biggest gripe. KM makes sound arguments for the most part, but this whole, "I see something that no one else sees" thing comes off as condescending and, frankly, like a load of crap.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts-Titans

                Here is how I would break up touches, we know Trent is a legit threat in the passing game, getting 50 catches last year is pretty decent work. So far we've gotten him 12 catches and he's producing close to 10 yards a tocuh in the passing game, we can't completely remove him from the run game because 1.) He flat our needs experience in the NFL and 2.) he needs experience in our system.

                I would continue to get Trent 10-15 touches a game, but I would make sure he gets 4-5 catches a game every single week. If he gets rolling on the ground early in a game, then I would stick with him. If he doesn't, I would then make sure I get Brown 15 touches specifcially in the running game.


                Comment


                • Re: Colts-Titans

                  Look I'm with a lot of you, Trent has been a huge disappointment over 8 weeks, but I relaly do see enough flashes to make me believe that it is a timing thing, Trent is still learning how to run in the NFL. in college, the guy was able to just run past or run over anyone who got close to him, he never really learned the finer points of running (something that Brown has had to pick up as well). It's why a guy like Addai actually IMO did much better early in his career, Addai was never the biggest even at the college level, so he had to learn how to cut back and read holes much earlier.

                  In college, Trent was a 230 lb ball of muscle who ran a 4.45 40 time. He was just a physical beast, he never had to learn the intricacies of running the ball through cut back holes and things like that. We just have to live through some growing pains, but the talent is there.

                  Remember Trent is a guy that in his second NFL game, went for 109 yards on the ground on 19 touches and another 40 through the air for 2 touchdowns. The natural talent is there. We have to get his mind up to it as well though.

                  The funniest thing going on twitter right now though has to be this idea that Trent is slow and Brown is some kind of speed demon. Brown is definitely more of a speed back with his running form, but the truth is the two of them run nearly identical 40 times. Brown was 4.46 at the combine and Trent was 4.48. But you see a lot of people, JMV is someone who thinks it is 100% true, that just keep piping this gospel that Trent is slow. No the natural talent is not the issue, watch him for 5 seconds when he catches the ball in space, he has great burst and breaks tackles, the issue is with his mind reading the cutback lanes and finding the holes. I think he can figure that out, especially with the football savant that is 12 at quarterback.
                  Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-15-2013, 01:29 PM.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts-Titans

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Here is how I would break up touches, we know Trent is a legit threat in the passing game, getting 50 catches last year is pretty decent work. So far we've gotten him 12 catches and he's producing close to 10 yards a tocuh in the passing game, we can't completely remove him from the run game because 1.) He flat our needs experience in the NFL and 2.) he needs experience in our system.

                    I would continue to get Trent 10-15 touches a game, but I would make sure he gets 4-5 catches a game every single week. If he gets rolling on the ground early in a game, then I would stick with him. If he doesn't, I would then make sure I get Brown 15 touches specifcially in the running game.
                    I more or less agree. I would split the touches (rushing/receiving) 65/35 in Brown's favor. He's been better, and he's earned it at this point. Richardson has to stay involved and we have to give him opportunities to make plays and gain some confidence. Also, whoever coaches the running backs needs to tell him when he gets that ball, don't hesitate, just RUN. Keep your legs churning no matter what. Stopping and sidestepping at the line of scrimmage is just going to give the defenders more time to get to you. This isn't Alabama where waiting will open up holes that you can exploit--you have to attack.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts-Titans

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      I more or less agree. I would split the touches (rushing/receiving) 65/35 in Brown's favor. He's been better, and he's earned it at this point. Richardson has to stay involved and we have to give him opportunities to make plays and gain some confidence. Also, whoever coaches the running backs needs to tell him when he gets that ball, don't hesitate, just RUN. Keep your legs churning no matter what. Stopping and sidestepping at the line of scrimmage is just going to give the defenders more time to get to you. This isn't Alabama where waiting will open up holes that you can exploit--you have to attack.
                      Agreed, Trent has to trust his forward momentum, he does well right now when he just reacts. It's a bit like bringing Lance along, two hugely gifted physical guys who never really learned the finer points. At the start, it might just be best to rely on your physical ability. The mind will come with it


                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts-Titans

                        I don't know what to tell ya cdash. I can see that the plays unfold in front of Brown differently than they do for Trent. The few times Trent had anything resembling a lane, he pulled a few guys to 6-7 yards. Most of the time he was met by defenders within a yard of hand off. Brown didn't encounter near as many of those situations. He had holes, obviously. The plays don't unfold for Rich like they do for Brown. Not trying to be condescending, but it is frustrating hearing you guys ***** about a Trich run for 1 yard when the line got busted, and then praise Brown when he goes 4 yards deep before evem being touched. There is a clear difference to me.
                        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 Since86 View Post
                          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.
                          I don't believe they were doing it all night but they were pointing out that the Colts had an extra tackle in the game
                          when they were going with the run later in the game.
                          {o,o}
                          |)__)
                          -"-"-

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts-Titans

                            They were doing it all night. I was making my sarcastic comments throughout the game. At the end, even with the extra linemen, they were still pulling from the other side. There's an article out on ESPN right now about how the linement took the StL game personally. I haven't read it yet, but I'm just wondering why StL was the final straw, I would think getting your *** handed to you for 6 straight weeks should have been motivation enough.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts-Titans

                              Yep.
                              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

                                http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...own-highlights

                                Here are several of Brown's runs from last night. My first observation is that the line definitely played better last night than they have. Unfortunately we don't have Trent's runs on video to easily compare, but IMO there isn't a conspiracy against Richardson to have the line block differently. On several plays you can see the Titans get close to hitting Brown at the line of scrimmage but Brown's speed and agility let him slide through the first line and build up a head of steam. He's able to avoid the initial tackle instead of having to break it, although he did show some good ability to shake off arm tackles (which of course is a little surprising with his reputation). I think those are the types of plays that Richardson is a little hesitant on and ends up getting hit on or just beyond the line of scrimmage instead of being able to slide past tacklers.

                                And you can also see that Brown's success (other than his reception) did not come about because of passing formations. I don't think they had 3 wide receivers in for any of those plays, and some of them were heavy run formations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X