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

Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

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

  • Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

    http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/10/...-start-overall

    Paul Kuharsky Thinks The Polians Are To Blame For 0-6 Start, Overall Ruination Of Colts
    by BigBlueShoe on Oct 20, 2011 9:00 AM EDT in 2011 Colts Analysis

    89 comments Email Print.
    Darron Cummings - APMore photos ».
    6 months ago: Indianapolis Colts Vice Chairman Bill Polian, left, responds to a question while Vice President and General Manager Chris Polian listens during a news conference in Indianapolis, Friday, April 22, 2011. Polian talked about the 2011 NFL Draft that will be held next week in New York. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)


    Browse more photos »
    ESPN's Paul Kuharsky has been a frequent guest on a few radio shows this week on local Indianapolis radio station WFNI 1070 The Fan, the flagship station for the Colts. I gotta say, the stuff he's chirping pertaining to the Colts on these shows has been pretty damn good, and it's been largely ignored.

    Much of what he said won't come off as news to anyone who frequently reads this blog, but the information and opinions Kuharsky shared do reinforce some strongly held views writers, like yours truly, have had for some time.

    Kuharsky was on 'The Grady and Big Joe Show' yesterday, and took some not-to-thinly-veiled jabs at the credibility of the men in charge of the Indianapolis Colts, Chris and Bill Polian:

    This secondary is just a disaster. I don't know what they were thinking. I still want to know the [Justin Tryon] story. If they think that Jacob Lacey is a No. 2 cornerback in the league, there's some deficiency there at talent evaluation.

    But it wasn't the stuff Kuharsky said on the late-morning show Tuesday that was incendiary. It was the conversation he had with Jon 'JMV' Michael Vincent on Monday that was truly informative and 'sit-up-straight-wow.' I missed this interview until today because I spent much of Monday setting fire to live kittens after the Colts fumbled and bumbled away yet another game this past Sunday, falling to 0-6 and the worst record in the league.

    During the Monday afternoon interview, JMV asked Kuharsky how much of the blame for the 0-6 start and the poor draft results in recent years should go on those 'at the top of the organization?' Kuharsky answered [emphasis mine]:

    I think, fundamentally, Bill Polian and the front office are probably the biggest culprits here, of anything, just because of what you said. If they 'hit' on certain guys, if they hit on Tony Ugoh, then they don't need to draft Anthony Castonzo, probably. Right? If they hit on certain guys, then they don't need to pick the next guy and they could have, you know, done better. And so, the draft failures of the last five years... if Donald Brown was what he was supposed to be, they wouldn't have needed to re-sign Joseph Addai. They would have saved themselves some money there. Maybe they don't need to draft Delone Carter and they could draft something else there that could be helping them right now. There's a domino effect on all of these misses. That, to me, if I was a Colts fan, would be the absolute most frustrating thing.

    Yep. There's even more after the jump, including Paul Kuharsky seemingly suggesting that Bill Polian is 'gifting' Andrew Luck to his son, Chris, next year...



    It's interesting that Kuharsky is saying these critical comments openly on a radio station that is the flagship for the Colts. Knowing what I know of how the Colts and the Polians react to criticism, no matter how fair or justified that criticism is, I really wonder if Kuharsky's standing at West 56th Street has been effected adversely. Paul said he has no plans to visit Indianapolis this year until the Super Bowl, and Super Bowl press access in Indy is not controlled by the Colts. It's league controlled.

    Back to the Monday interview, JMV then went on to ask Paul if Jim Caldwell is on or off the hook for this year because of Peyton Manning's injury. Kuharsky said he's on the hook, but did give Caldwell credit for keeping the team together through this mess. However, that doesn't mean Caldwell's job at the end of 2011 is safe. In fact, it's anything but.

    PK: I think the transition from Bill Polian to Chris Polian has produced a lot of changes on different levels. Maybe in draft strategy. We saw the P.R. department turnover. We've seen other people, [Tom] Moore and [Howard] Mudd, go as this thing has kind of turned itself over. And, I think he, you know, Jim Caldwell is Bill Polian's guy. No, Tony Dungy was Bill Polian's guy and Jim Caldwell is Tony Dungy's guy. And how far removed from that is Chris Polian? And how much might he want his own guy, or feel he's got to have his own guy in order to move the chess pieces, so to speak.

    JMV then added this pretty significant little bit of rumor tongue:

    JMV: The more and more I hear, the more and more there's a growing 'splinter cell,' if you will, type of group [at West 56th Street] that are basically sick and tired of hearing what the Polians have to say over there.

    Folks, JMV is very wired into the Colts and the staff who work at West 56th Street. He was the one who first (and correctly) reported that Peyton Manning would have a third surgery in August, effectively ending his 2011 season. So, when JMV says he's hearing that people within the organization are growing sick of the Polians and want them gone, it's a safe bet that info is true.

    Kuharsky knows this, and responded [emphasis mine]:

    PK: I'd stop short of calling it a 'rift,' but I do think some, how shall we say... I think the coaching staff and the front office are not as united as they typically have been there. And that's another reason you can see, and that's not so much maybe Caldwell, who I think is 'company man' and a good soldier, but maybe some of the stronger personalities on his staff who've been part of things there for a long time and had their way of doing things and had success with it. I think there have been, I wouldn't say 'battles,' but I don't think the coaching staff gets that big a say in who stays and who goes. I think some of the decisions made on cutdown day didn't go as well over in the coaches' offices because they were kind of edict decisions, and went against, maybe, I don't want to say 'the vote' because it's not a democracy, but against what the wishes of some of the offensive or defensive staff might have wanted.

    This might explain why strong-minded, legendary assistants like Howard Mudd, Tom Moore, and Gene Huey are now gone, replaced with less accomplished people who can't coach the Colts to wins over the Browns, Chiefs, and Bengals.

    Still, despite the apparent in-fighting between coaches and the Polians, Paul Kuharsky makes one thing clear:

    PK: I don't think the Polians are going anywhere.

    JMV then stated that there is a believe that a lot of the negative stuff coming out of West 56th Street is by virtue of people who actually hope that the Polians fail.

    JMV: There are some people who would, if nothing, like to see a couple of Polians no longer a part of [the Colts] anymore.

    PK: Oh yeah! I think that's true.

    Kuharsky went on to talk about how people in the building are starting to tune out the Polians, and that their accomplishment of winning a championship in 2006 is dwindling to a distant memory. However, Kuharsky reiterated:

    PK: I think Irsay is completely married to the Polians. Anybody in the building, in headquarters, hoping for something to change with the Polians isn't going to get what they want until Chris Polian has a big failure on his own.

    But it was for the final moments of their conversation that Kuhasrky held off the duzzy, the 'wow' suggestion that would have more than a few league people perk up with interest should this scenario prove true:

    PK: And, quite frankly, I could see a scenario where Bill is kind of 'gifting' Andrew Luck to Chris, and saying, I had Jim Kelly and I had Peyton Manning, and you're getting Andrew Luck. Here's my gift to you for your G.M. legacy. Go make it work and make your stamp.

    'Gifting.'

    At first listening, it sounds an awful lot like Paul suggesting that Bill Polian is sabotaging the Colts this season so they can intentionally lose and draft Andrew Luck with the No. 1 overall pick in 2012. I did contact Paul for clarification on the comment, and he told me it was NOT meant to suggest Bill or Chris are intentionally tanking. Rather, Paul meant to say that if the Colts end up with the worst record and the No. 1 pick, they will indeed take Luck. Thus, Luck 'gifted' to Chris.

    I don't know. Makes sense when you add that little clarification, but without it, sure looks like Paul suggested the Colts were intentionally tanking for Andrew Luck. I don't believe it was Paul's initial intention to suggest that, but listeners who heard him Monday probably came away with that impression.

    So, yeah. Lots to digest there.

    Apologies if this all depresses the hell out of you, but it seems our beloved Colts are in complete and total disarray. It sounds like the Polians are about as popular within the walls of West 56th Street as they are outside those walls. Makes you wonder if Andrew Luck would want anything to do with this organization should the Colts get the top pick. Remember the last time Indy tried to draft a Stanford QB No. 1 overall?

  • #2
    Re: Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

    I do not remember Indy trying to draft a Stanford QB....

    Boy, I remember when Baltimore tried drafting one though
    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: Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I do not remember Indy trying to draft a Stanford QB....

      Boy, I remember when Baltimore tried drafting one though
      Same franchise different city could be history repeating itself so in that case the Colts will leave Indy and after 15 years they will get a QB from Tennessee.

      I really think that Elway refusing to play for the Colts in Baltimore was what caused the Colts to move to Indy so really I can't hate him for it I'd have no team to root for without him doing that.

      I mean if Elway was there I think that they would've stayed in Baltimore.

      Of course he wouldn't have gone to 5 SB's and won 2 at the end of his career either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

        PK: I think the transition from Bill Polian to Chris Polian has produced a lot of changes on different levels. Maybe in draft strategy. We saw the P.R. department turnover. We've seen other people, [Tom] Moore and [Howard] Mudd, go as this thing has kind of turned itself over. And, I think he, you know, Jim Caldwell is Bill Polian's guy. No, Tony Dungy was Bill Polian's guy and Jim Caldwell is Tony Dungy's guy. And how far removed from that is Chris Polian? And how much might he want his own guy, or feel he's got to have his own guy in order to move the chess pieces, so to speak.

        Not exactly, Dungy was Irsay's guy. Heard it from a very good source that Dungy and Polian really didn't care for each other, but were able to work together to get the job done.

        The other comment about coaches stepping away makes sense as they all had strong opinions and personalities. I would think Polian was helping Caldwell somewhat by removing some of the heat so to speak and weakening some of Peyton's power too. Mudd and Moore were Dungy fans and the DLine coach was a Polian favorite. Guess who's still around.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

          Yeah I thought that part was odd too. I thought it was pretty universally accepted that Irsay is the one who called Dungy the second he was fired and put the big push on to get him here.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Paul Kuharsky criticizes the Polians

            Originally posted by RWB View Post
            PK: I think the transition from Bill Polian to Chris Polian has produced a lot of changes on different levels. Maybe in draft strategy. We saw the P.R. department turnover. We've seen other people, [Tom] Moore and [Howard] Mudd, go as this thing has kind of turned itself over. And, I think he, you know, Jim Caldwell is Bill Polian's guy. No, Tony Dungy was Bill Polian's guy and Jim Caldwell is Tony Dungy's guy. And how far removed from that is Chris Polian? And how much might he want his own guy, or feel he's got to have his own guy in order to move the chess pieces, so to speak.

            Not exactly, Dungy was Irsay's guy. Heard it from a very good source that Dungy and Polian really didn't care for each other, but were able to work together to get the job done.

            The other comment about coaches stepping away makes sense as they all had strong opinions and personalities. I would think Polian was helping Caldwell somewhat by removing some of the heat so to speak and weakening some of Peyton's power too. Mudd and Moore were Dungy fans and the DLine coach was a Polian favorite. Guess who's still around.


            Yeah and after this season I would think Manning would have more power(if he comes back healthy)

            He could easily say to Bill "Look at how you guys are without me"

            At this point the only way Polian and Caldwell get the boot is if Manning demands it. Will Irsay turn down his cash cow?

            Comment

            Working...
            X