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

Insider article 12-13-06

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

  • Insider article 12-13-06

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insid...lid%3dtab3pos2


    IF someone is willing...


    There is an old line that says if you don't like the weather now, wait 15 minutes and it will change. That seems to be the best way to describe this NFL season as well. If you think you have a handle on a team, wait a couple of Sundays and that will change. I would like to focus on some units that have dramatically improved or faltered as the season has progressed.

    Indianapolis offense

    Most pundits are pointing to the Colts' run defense as the reason this team has lost three of its last four games, but the Indianapolis offense isn't exactly holding its own. This unit has scored fewer than 20 points in four of the last five games.
    The first reason this group is struggling is because Peyton Manning is taking a much more conservative approach in his passing game over the past few weeks. I tracked the Colts' pass depth distribution, starting with the Buffalo game in Week 10 through the first half of Sunday's game at Jacksonville. I excluded the second half of the game against the Jaguars, because the Colts were in comeback mode after falling behind 31-10 early in the third quarter. Here are the percentages of each type of pass for that period:
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

  • #2
    Re: Insider article 12-13-06

    I'm curious what that is going to say and wonder if it takes into account the ints that Manning has thrown. If you're giving the ball away you're limiting your time of possession to be probing the opposing defense.

    I think the offense needs to be somewhat conservative and not try and do anything the defense isn't giving them. We have to keep OUR defense off the field as much as possible.

    -Bball
    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


    • #3
      Re: Insider article 12-13-06

      There is an old line that says if you don't like the weather now, wait 15 minutes and it will change. That seems to be the best way to describe this NFL season as well. If you think you have a handle on a team, wait a couple of Sundays and that will change. I would like to focus on some units that have dramatically improved or faltered as the season has progressed.

      Indianapolis offense

      Most pundits are pointing to the Colts' run defense as the reason this team has lost three of its last four games, but the Indianapolis offense isn't exactly holding its own. This unit has scored fewer than 20 points in four of the last five games.


      The first reason this group is struggling is because Peyton Manning is taking a much more conservative approach in his passing game over the past few weeks. I tracked the Colts' pass depth distribution, starting with the Buffalo game in Week 10 through the first half of Sunday's game at Jacksonville. I excluded the second half of the game against the Jaguars, because the Colts were in comeback mode after falling behind 31-10 early in the third quarter. Here are the percentages of each type of pass for that period:
      Short: 62.6
      Medium: 18.4
      Deep: 12.9
      Compare those figures with the percentages for this season and the previous two seasons:
      Peyton Manning
      Depth200420052006
      Short 58.8 55.6 52.9
      Medium 22.7 23.8 25.4
      Deep 15.1 13.9 15.9



      So why is Manning becoming more conservative? Simply put, he doesn't have as many vertical receiving options. To illustrate what I mean, here are the metrics this year for the No. 3 receivers, Dallas Clark and Brandon Stokley:

      Wide Receivers
      PlayerAttCompYdsTDINTPenP-YdsYPA
      Clark 50 26 311 4 3 0 0 6.2
      Stokely 12 8 85 1 0 1 21 8.8
      Total 62 34 396 5 3 1 21 6.7



      To put the 6.7 YPA total in perspective, when Manning posted his league-leading 9.2 YPA in 2004, Stokley averaged 9.6 yards per attempt on 124 passes. When Stokley's YPA dropped to 8.3 on 69 passes in 2005, Manning's YPA dropped to 8.3. Stokley has been out for most of this season, and that is a large reason why Manning's YPA has dropped to 7.9 this year.

      Clark may have been a mediocre No. 3 wide receiver, but things have gotten worse since his injury in the Philadelphia game a couple of weeks ago. The Colts have had to move TE Bryan Fletcher to the No. 3 spot.
      Consequently, the tight end position has been eliminated from the passing game. Also, Fletcher is not as good as Clark as a No. 3 receiver. Even if the Colts are able to find a way around this weakness in the next few weeks, it is certainly something they will want to address in free agency next season.

      Denver defense

      Early in the season, this defense looked like it had a chance to be listed as one of the greatest in NFL history. It had allowed seven or fewer points in five of the first six games and was on a pace potentially to break the record for fewest points allowed in a 16-game season. Since then, this unit has allowed more than 27 points per game, and it has given up 34 or more points in three of these games.


      So what are the reasons for this group's downfall? It really is a combination of two things. Early on, the Broncos were facing some really weak offenses. A list of their early opponents included:

      A. St. Louis, before Scott Linehan's offensive system took hold.
      B. Kansas City in Damon Huard's first game as the Chiefs' starting QB.
      C. Baltimore, Cleveland and Oakland -- three of the worst offenses in the league.

      This defense was dominating weak teams and became somewhat overrated. The Broncos faced a much tougher set of offenses after that, including two matchups against San Diego and games against Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Seattle, and that's when their true talent level started to show through.

      The other reason for the point increase can be summed up in two words: Darrent Williams. I hate to place the burden for a team's downfall on the shoulders of one player, but take a look at his metrics before and after Reggie Wayne torched him in Week 8:
      Darrent Williams/Reggie Wayne
      GamesAttCompYdsTDINTPenP-YdsYPA
      Before 31 16 152 0 0 0 0 4.9
      After 34 28 428 4 2 1 -10 12.3
      Total 65 44 580 4 2 1 -10 8.8



      Williams was playing at a Pro Bowl level before that game, but has fallen apart since. He's not the only reason Denver's playoff hopes are collapsing, but it is not easy to win with a starting cornerback who is allowing an 80 percent completion rate and more than 12 yards per attempt.

      San Diego defense

      It's hard to criticize a team on a seven-game winning streak, but the Chargers' defense has been suspect of late. It started the season giving up only 11 points per game in its first five games, but that total has risen to more than 25 points per game in their last eight contests. In only one of these eight games have the Chargers given up under 20 points, and they have given up 24 or more points five times.


      The Chargers' main problem has been stopping medium and deep passes.
      Chargers
      DepthAttCompYdsTDINTPenP-YdsYPA
      Short 229 159 1212 7 5 3 19 5.4
      Medium 75 41 647 4 3 3 41 9.2
      Deep 62 22 727 5 3 3 61 12.7
      Total 366 222 2586 16 11 9 121 7.4



      The medium and deep pass yards per attempt would likely place the Chargers in the bottom third of the league in that category at the end of the season.

      The odd thing about these figures is the Chargers' starting cornerbacks, Drayton Florence and Quentin Jammer, are having possibly the best seasons of their careers (6.5 YPA for Jammer, 6.4 for Florence). San Diego also has a very good set of pass rushers in Shawne Merriman, Shaun Phillips and Luis Castillo.

      The combination of those two factors should lead to a team's being very good at stopping the deep pass, yet the Chargers have given up at least one successful deep pass (completion or defensive penalty) in all but two of their games. They have also given up two or more successful deep passes in seven games, including four of their last five.
      Some of their recent coverage issues are probably due to Merriman and Castillo being out of the lineup but if the Chargers have any Achilles' heel heading into the playoffs, their vertical pass defense is it.
      Arizona offense

      It may be too little, too late for Dennis Green to save his job, but his offensive scheme finally seems to be taking hold. The Cardinals have scored 87 points in their last three games, a total that matches their best three-game scoring output during the Green era.


      The reason for this improvement is that the Cardinals have finally been able to keep an offensive line in place for more than a couple of weeks. Arizona has started the same front five for the past four weeks, the first time that has happened this season.

      The prime beneficiaries of this stability have been Edgerrin James and Matt Leinart. James posted his first two 100-yard rushing games during this stretch and Leinart's passing metrics over the past three games have been eye-popping:
      Matt Leinart
      DepthAttCompYdsTDINTPenP-YdsYPA
      Short 62 46 399 3 1 0 0 6.4
      Medium 21 15 242 0 1 0 0 11.5
      Deep 15 6 162 0 0 1 8 11.3
      Total 98 67 803 3 2 1 8 8.3


      There has been a lot of talk about how the Saints and Titans made out like bandits on draft day by getting Reggie Bush and Vince Young, but give Green and the Cardinals a ton of credit for drafting Leinart. If he can post numbers like this for an entire season, Leinart could leapfrog Bush and Young as the steal of the 2006 draft.

      Why Not Us ?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insider article 12-13-06

        It looks to me like those stats he gave are directly the opposite of what he's saying.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Insider article 12-13-06

          Perhaps the reason Peyton is playing conservative is because teams are trying to limit him by playing their safeties and corners against the deep ball rather then the short one. And it looks like it's working.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Insider article 12-13-06

            Originally posted by Moses View Post
            Perhaps the reason Peyton is playing conservative is because teams are trying to limit him by playing their safeties and corners against the deep ball rather then the short one. And it looks like it's working.
            Welcome to last year...

            Like the article says, we miss Clark and Stokley catching passes in the middle...
            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Insider article 12-13-06

              Originally posted by Moses View Post
              Perhaps the reason Peyton is playing conservative is because teams are trying to limit him by playing their safeties and corners against the deep ball rather then the short one. And it looks like it's working.
              I have to believe this is the bigger factor and then the lack of Clark and Stokley only exacerbates the situation. If you add in this so-called conservative, short yardage tendency to the defensive issues, particularly against the run, I think you've got the blueprint for how to successfully attack the Colts.

              It's no big secret to us. Teams like the Titans and Bills have employed it to their advantage. It all builds in to the idea of limiting our number of possessions by making our O have to work to get up and down the field before scoring (if we do indeed score).

              Plus the offense has the extreme pressure of the burden to put up 7 on every possession due to lower possessions and the D's inability to contain anyone. All this increases the potential for turnovers as the offense becomes more and more frustrated (particularly Manning) as the game wears on.

              In the bigger picture-say a multi-game trajectory-you also cannot underestimate the ongoing psychological impact on the offense watching the defense and special teams being constantly demoralized. That's not to lay the entire blame away from the offense. It's true they have not played well either, increasing penalties and the turnovers, etc..
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Insider article 12-13-06

                What I've found watching Colts games is that when we do well offensively, the defense feeds into that. I think that the defense is at it's best when it can get a few three and outs because that way we don't have to score on every possession. and it does happen sometimes. We also needs some takeaways.
                Play Mafia!
                Twitter

                Comment

                Working...
                X