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

Pep fired

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

  • #31
    Re: Pep fired

    Regarding our offensive struggles this year, I felt it was 70% on Pep, 20% on our line, and 10% on Luck's health. Our line is a problem, but there are ways to work around and mask a bad line with playcalling, and it just wasn't happening. Nothing you can do about Luck's health except wait for him to recover; the line has had noticeable improvement of late; and we just replaced Pep, and with a pretty good replacement. I'm not exactly predicting a massive turnaround, but it's hard to imagine these offensive players not jumping for joy at this news.
    It may take a few weeks for things to fall into place, especially considering we're facing the best defense this week.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-03-2015, 08:45 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


    • #32
      Re: Pep fired

      Always feel bad about a guy losing his job, but I find it hard to fault this from what I've seen.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pep fired

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Ya I would think that move had to be signed off on and executed by Grigson.
        I would think that move happens only if Pagano says it needs to happen in a conversation directly with Irsay, who backs him up and says "do it", or else in a conversation with Grigson, if he's willing to try it Pagano's way, since his way (read: Pep) isn't working.... and he realizes he's mostly a dead man walking if things don't turn around anyway.

        I don't see Pagano himself firing Grigson's guy who was forced on him in the first place, without some more complicated behind the scenes moves taking place.
        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


        • #34
          Re: Pep fired

          Sounds like they made this move ahead of the bye week so that we'll actually be able to use it to tweak the offense with what is learned before the bye, as well as install new stuff (fully) during the bye.
          Last edited by Bball; 11-03-2015, 09:01 PM.
          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


          • #35
            Re: Pep fired

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. There has been universal criticism of Luck's play both on this forum and in the media.

            Pep was a problem even when Luck was playing really solid a couple of years ago.
            Pep has received a lot of the blame for Luck's struggles. I think that after last night, he was the fall guy for Luck not playing well. I didn't say it wasn't warranted, just that it happened because Luck isn't playing well.

            If he continues to struggle, I'd assume someone else (Pagano and/or Grigson) would be fired as well. Would you not agree

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pep fired

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Pep has received a lot of the blame for Luck's struggles. I think that after last night, he was the fall guy for Luck not playing well. I didn't say it wasn't warranted, just that it happened because Luck isn't playing well.

              If he continues to struggle, I'd assume someone else (Pagano and/or Grigson) would be fired as well. Would you not agree
              That's just how sports work. Coaches always go first.

              The complaints about Pep have been years in the making.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pep fired

                Truthfully I'm surprised. I didn't think they had it in them to fire Pep.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pep fired

                  i don't know how this was decided but think Irsay said to Grigson do something. Pep was the most obvious guy to go. Firing Pagano would have disrupted the whole team and Chud has experience as a OC. Guessing that Irsay is sending a message that these guys have to work together or they're all going out the door. Pep is not to blame that the OL has one new guy who played only 2 games.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pep fired

                    Andrew Luck, not Pep Hamilton, is the reason for the Colts' offensive woes. Receivers are getting open, Luck just can't make the right reads to get them the ball.

                    I don't know that Chud will fix Luck's issues.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pep fired



                      Doyel: Colts GM Ryan Grigson survives to screw up another day
                      Gregg Doyel, gregg.doyel@indystar.com 10:53 p.m. EST November 3, 2015

                      Call him what he is: a survivor. Ryan Grigson is a survivor the likes of which they make movies about, putting them on an island with a volleyball named Wilson or in the Indianapolis Colts front office with an owner named Irsay, an owner who doesn’t know what to do with a season that has been cast adrift and does the easiest thing possible:

                      Allows someone to fire the offensive coordinator, Pep Hamilton, because clearly the whole thing — the Colts’ defense is 29th in the league in yards allowed, by the way — is his fault.

                      Meanwhile, the GM who put that comically bad offensive line in front of quarterback Andrew Luck earlier this season, the GM who put together this oddly too-old, too-young team — the GM who hired Pep Hamilton, of all people — stays in charge.

                      When the nuclear winter comes, Ryan Grigson will survive it. That’s all I’m saying.


                      INDIANAPOLIS STAR
                      Insider: Pep Hamilton's ouster no sure fix for Colts

                      Thing is, this move can’t hurt. The new offensive coordinator, Rob Chudzinski — the guy coach Chuck Pagano wanted all along, a guy with an actual NFL offensive coordinator pedigree — got stuff done as an offensive coordinator in Carolina with rookie quarterback Cam Newton and one great but tiny receiver (Steve Smith) and two really good tight ends (Greg Olsen, Jeremy Shockey).

                      Here in Indianapolis, the Colts have one great but tiny receiver (T.Y. Hilton) and two really good tight ends (Coby Fleener, Dwayne Allen). Plus Frank Gore and Donte Moncrief. There’s enough there to get something done.

                      The defense is a train wreck, but that wasn’t on Pep. It’s on Pagano, yes, but it’s also on the GM who addressed the defense, the Colts’ clearest deficiency a year ago — well, that and the offensive line — with mostly bargain-basement free agents, midround draft picks and a pair of crossed fingers.

                      Make no mistake, Pep Hamilton is merely the latest in a line of Grigson’s failed big ideas — others: Trent Richardson, Bjoern Werner, Todd Herremans, Jack Mewhort to tackle — to undercut this franchise.

                      Pep Hamilton was a Grigson guy all right, right down to his tendency to act clever, instead of being clever. Fake it until you make it, you know? Pep was faking it, calling runs when the team should pass, passes when the team should run, and getting too much credit when the brilliance of Andrew Luck made his bizarre play calls actually work.

                      But Pep was a symptom of what ails the Colts, not the actual ailment. The actual ailment is the guy calling the shots, the general manager who runs the franchise with the attitude of a Polian (Bill) and the football acumen of a Polian (Chris). Grigson carries himself like the smartest guy in the room — “he thinks he invented football,” one veteran player told me this week — but doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

                      Grigson doesn’t know he can’t coach. He forced Pagano to play Trent Richardson. He forced Pagano to open this season with an offensive line featuring two bad guards (Herremans, Lance Louis) at guard and an excellent guard (Mewhort) at tackle. Two games into the season, realizing Luck was in danger and he’s the head coach, Pagano revamped the line. Just like he stopped giving Richardson the ball last season once he remembered, oh, right, I’m the coach here — not Grigson.


                      Pagano wanted Chudzinski three years ago. Grigson forced Hamilton on him, then took all the credit for the hire, telling the media he had lists of names for various openings, and that Hamilton was his top name as an offensive coordinator.

                      When the Colts announced Hamilton had been fired on Tuesday, Pagano was quoted. Grigson was silent. Why? Because Pagano is a stand-up guy who takes blame that isn’t his, and because Grigson is a carnivore who sits in the press box snarling about mistakes on the field — I sit near him; I hear him — and whispering into his cellphone as the Colts are falling down 23-6 Monday night at Carolina (I saw him) and going silent when his latest big idea, Pep Hamilton, gets the big boot.

                      A season that started with Super Bowl hype and hits the midpoint with a 3-5 skid mark has turned into "The Hunger Games" here in Indianapolis. It’s survival of the fittest, and the Colts’ most skilled survivor remains in charge, avoiding blame for the potential dynasty he is dissolving one move at a time.

                      Nothing lasts forever, though. Wilson started sprouting grass right out of his head, then floated off into the ocean.

                      Grigson will float on out of here eventually.

                      Guys like that, they usually do.
                      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...-day/75130104/
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Pep fired

                        “he thinks he invented football,” one veteran player told me this week
                        Good to know Grigson's lack of popularity extends to the players as well.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pep fired

                          Gregg Doyel MURDERED Grigson tonight. Blew a whole lot of story lines up.

                          The big one being something that's been discussed before, but is always important to remember, Pep was Grigson's pet idea. Chuck wanted Chud to be the guy from day 1.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pep fired

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Pep has received a lot of the blame for Luck's struggles. I think that after last night, he was the fall guy for Luck not playing well. I didn't say it wasn't warranted, just that it happened because Luck isn't playing well.

                            If he continues to struggle, I'd assume someone else (Pagano and/or Grigson) would be fired as well. Would you not agree
                            Has nothing to do with that for me on multiple front:

                            1.) Pep: Didn't like the hire on day 1. Didn't like it when they got **** canned in New England last year....again. Didn't like it now. Just don't like Pep. He's a college coach IMO all the way.

                            2.) Grigson: Have really been sour on him since the beginning of this offseason. He mismanaged the draft, again and spent a lot of money on aging skill players that, honestly, the team did not really need. The Trent trade is also a massive black mark on his resume.

                            3.) Pagano: I dunno, part of me still believes in Chuck, but what's killing me is the refusal for him to man up in the media and just say what we all see, the team is bad right now and they need to get it fixed.

                            So Luck sucking or not, I'm pretty happy with Pep being removed. I felt he was holding Luck and the offense back last year even when Luck was playing well.

                            Also, I'm not really sure what you see as the alternative? Are you suggesting we dump Luck over so far one potentially bad season? Obviously other people will be the first to go, Luck would have to play like this for 2-3 years for the franchise to make a change at QB.


                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pep fired

                              One of my buddies said it best, even if you liked Pep, which is there really anyone who actually liked the way our offense ran? But what my buddy said last night before this news ever even came out, "The Colts need a kick in the ***, and Pep is the low hanging ***"


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pep fired

                                And also even as the offense was turning the corner late against Carolina, there were some moments Pep made it harder than it needed to be, including multiple 2nd and 9/10 shotgun run draws that got like a yard and doomed us to a 3rd and long.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X