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

Week 16: @Chiefs

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

  • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

    I haven't seen the game cause I am away from any kind of cable TV but I read the defense was immense yesterday. How did the offense and playcalling was like?
    Never forget

    Comment


    • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      And the O line gave Luck time to throw. That cannot be understated.
      Agree, and they ran lots of max protect too with the RB and FB on either side of Luck. That helped too.

      Comment


      • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

        Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
        How did the offense and playcalling was like?
        At half time they put up a stat that said 21 passes to 7 rushes. I don't know what it ended up being, as they ran quite a bit in the second half to keep the clock running, but it was definitely one-sided towards passing when they needed to move the ball.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

          1) So the Chiefs are a top-team, and are a strong home team. Indy walks in there and beats them soundly. Flip on all the sports channels and sports radio --- I've been watching/listening now for 2 hours and not a single recap of coverage of this game. That was an impressive win and no one is even paying attention.
          2) As bad as our November lull was, you could argue that no team in the NFL has a more impressive collection of wins over the top teams.
          3) The O-line --- pass protection grade: B+. Run blocking grade: D. I'll take the improvement, especially, in the passing game to keep Luck upright. I do wish we could improve the run-blocking. I know we broke 100 yards yesterday, but half of it was Brown's huge run. And this line/playcalling still favors DBrown. I don't know why, but the plays unfold completely differently for Brown than they do TRich. Every time. Holes open up for DBrown --- the line collapses back on TRich. Why, Pep, why?
          4) Like I said a few weeks back, our D sort of feeds off our O. When our offense struggled, it sort of sucked the wind out of the defense. Now that the offense seems to back on track, the defense seems to have new life.
          5) So I guess it's time to waive Griff Whalen again. He's been a nice contributor all year, and yet they keep cuttin him.
          6) We're in play for the #2 seed. Thing is --- I don't really want it. Our bye this year threw us off for a month... I have never liked the first-round bye.
          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: Week 16: @Chiefs

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            1) So the Chiefs are a top-team, and are a strong home team. Indy walks in there and beats them soundly. Flip on all the sports channels and sports radio --- I've been watching/listening now for 2 hours and not a single recap of coverage of this game. That was an impressive win and no one is even paying attention.
            2) As bad as our November lull was, you could argue that no team in the NFL has a more impressive collection of wins over the top teams.
            3) The O-line --- pass protection grade: B+. Run blocking grade: D. I'll take the improvement, especially, in the passing game to keep Luck upright. I do wish we could improve the run-blocking. I know we broke 100 yards yesterday, but half of it was Brown's huge run. And this line/playcalling still favors DBrown. I don't know why, but the plays unfold completely differently for Brown than they do TRich. Every time. Holes open up for DBrown --- the line collapses back on TRich. Why, Pep, why?
            4) Like I said a few weeks back, our D sort of feeds off our O. When our offense struggled, it sort of sucked the wind out of the defense. Now that the offense seems to back on track, the defense seems to have new life.
            5) So I guess it's time to waive Griff Whalen again. He's been a nice contributor all year, and yet they keep cuttin him.
            6) We're in play for the #2 seed. Thing is --- I don't really want it. Our bye this year threw us off for a month... I have never liked the first-round bye.

            I don't think you have to worry about the 2 seed. The Pats won't lose to Buffalo at home next week.

            What impressed me most about Whalen was his tenacity in fighting for yards after the catch.

            BTW, where has Fleener been the last two weeks? I'm not going to complain because we are winning, but he had zero catches against Houston and just two yesterday. I hope that we find a way to get him involved against the lowly Jags next week because it would be nice to give him a boost of confidence heading into the playoffs. He's a big asset for this offense.

            This game felt almost IDENTICAL to the San Francisco game. We were playing on the road in a hostile environment against an opponent that few people gave us a chance to beat. Then our defense goes out and manhandles the opposing offense, while our offense comes up with perfectly timed plays.

            I feel much better about the team now. I'm not penciling them in for an AFC championship game appearance, but we definitely have the potential to make some noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              At half time they put up a stat that said 21 passes to 7 rushes. I don't know what it ended up being, as they ran quite a bit in the second half to keep the clock running, but it was definitely one-sided towards passing when they needed to move the ball.
              Was it effective all in all or was it a matter of defense having a major game and being the main reason we won it?

              Hope we didn't have many head scratching plays and showed further improvement.
              Never forget

              Comment


              • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                Was it effective all in all or was it a matter of defense having a major game and being the main reason we won it?
                It was very effective. Honestly, I think the offense helped the defense moreso than the other way around.

                Letting Luck get in a groove and moving the chains, then going to the power run has always made much more logical sense to me rather than establishing the run and then going for the pass. At least for teams that struggle to run and have a good throwing QB.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                  CBS cut to their camera feed at the top of Arrowhead towards the beginning of the 4th qtr, and qutie a bit of fans were leaving and a whole hell of a lot looked like they had left somewhere around halftime. The only thing I could think of was "good thing this isn't a home game, or we'd have 5 pages whining that they aren't true fan enough to freeze their balls off."

                  The older I get the more thankful I am that LOS kept the roof. Good God, I'd hate to have to sit/stand in weather like that.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                    Letting Luck get in a groove and moving the chains, then going to the power run has always made much more logical sense to me rather than establishing the run and then going for the pass. At least for teams that struggle to run and have a good throwing QB.
                    Spot on. The other way around is not that it will never work but if you just can't run to set up the passing game then it's time for the other way.

                    Don't know why the staff was hell bent on that since it wasn't working but let's hope they have realized it at last.
                    Never forget

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                      Colts links: Dominating road win has restored faith
                      By Matthew Glenesk, matthew.glenesk@indystar.com

                      - Just how good was the Colts' defensive effort on Sunday? Check this out from the Elias Sports Bureau:

                      The Colts stopped the NFL's hottest offense cold on Sunday. The Chiefs had averaged 41.8 points over their previous four games, which was the highest four-game mark in team history.
                      On Sunday, K.C. became the first team since 1954 to score fewer than 10 points in a game immediately following a four-game stretch with an average of 40 or more points. The only other teams to have done that both won their low-scoring game: the Giants in 1950 (9-7 over the Eagles); and the Browns in 1954 (6-0 over the Eagles).
                      - Colts WR Darrius Heyward-Bey, who lost his starting job, produced some important special teams plays in Sunday's win. The Star's Mike Chappell blogs about DHB and his contributions to the team:

                      During his four-year career in Oakland, Heyward-Bey was an offensive focal point.
                      "Yeah, I was on a team where I was the No. 1 receiver, had 975 yards (in 2011) and all that,'' he said. "But we never won more than eight games.
                      "Nothing beats winning. Nothing.''

                      More:
                      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...hiefs/4174337/
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

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

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                        One of Pag's better post-game speeches:

                        http://www.colts.com/videos/videos/P...e-27af49e603ff
                        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: Week 16: @Chiefs

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          CBS cut to their camera feed at the top of Arrowhead towards the beginning of the 4th qtr, and qutie a bit of fans were leaving and a whole hell of a lot looked like they had left somewhere around halftime. The only thing I could think of was "good thing this isn't a home game, or we'd have 5 pages whining that they aren't true fan enough to freeze their balls off."

                          The older I get the more thankful I am that LOS kept the roof. Good God, I'd hate to have to sit/stand in weather like that.
                          Yeah, an open roof stadium just wouldn't work in Indy. People around here just aren't hardened enough for it. I sure as hell would rather sit in Lucas in December than Soldier Field. Plus we had to build an indoor stadium so that we could get Final Fours and other indoor events.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                            Also... our secondary has felt anemic for a month. They looked really good yesterday. Did having Toler back really have that big of an impact? I guess you'd have to assume so.
                            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: Week 16: @Chiefs

                              Actually, Arrowhead was far from full at the start. I kind of wonder if some of the upper deck people moved down to the lower sections as the game went on because even that wasn't full at the start.

                              And my first thought was: There would be a certain subset of fans complaining about Indy's fairweather fans if that was here. The perception is, I'm sure, that Kansas is a great football region and those fans would be there hot or cold, win or lose.... But the truth is most places are just like Indy. Or Indy is just like most places... fans support the team when it's winning. And nobody goes 100% 'in' in bad weather even if they are a winner.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

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

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 16: @Chiefs

                                So I thought our RBs were pretty even in production yesterday once you took away DBrown's huge run. I went back and looked at that run, and sure enough --- it was one of the few times our O line won at the line of scrimmage. Huge hole. There were only 6 defenders in the box. It still begs the question for me --- why is it that Brown gets this type of blocking and play-calling, while TRich doesn't? I saw a number of people in the game-thread during the game make mention of TRich not being used right, and I whole-heartedly agree. I just don't get it. It's like they run Brown in passing situations, and the line actually decides to win a matchup, then they stick TRich in with 9 guys in the box and make him go up the middle for a zero yard gain. Brown also gets a few of the "TRich play calls" throughout each game, and he gets stuffed as expected. It's like they never put TRich in a position to succeed. OR... the opposing teams have a different mindset to defend TRich and they stack the box. I dunno. But it's clear as day to me... Brown's run plays have more space and less congestion in front of him, and TRIch's plays are congested as hell.

                                I just don't get it. He's a dynamic back --- use him right.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-23-2013, 02:07 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

                                Working...
                                X