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

SI Article about the Colts freefall

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

  • SI Article about the Colts freefall

    I thought it was well done




    Colts look lost in historically abrupt freefall from prominence


    The Colts appeared to hit rock bottom with their 62-7 loss to the Saints Sunday.

    Derick E. Hingle/US Presswire




    Just two short years ago, the top story as the NFL's regular season unfolded was the Indianapolis Colts and their pursuit of a perfect record. The Colts opened that year 14-0, and then inspired a national debate by taking their foot off the gas after Christmas, choosing to rest their players for the playoffs rather than chase perfection.

    That controversy and all of its attendant fallout must seem eons ago in Indianapolis these days. The Colts in 2011 are again mounting a run at perfection, but it is their unblemished streak of playing perfectly awful football that now captures our attention. Forced for the first time ever to get along without injured quarterback Peyton Manning, who is still recovering from recent neck surgeries, the Colts aren't just a shell of their old selves, they're not even recognizable beyond their blue and white color scheme and that familiar horseshoe on their helmets.

    Indianapolis is a stunning and NFL-worst 0-7 this season, and Sunday night in New Orleans represented the nadir of the Colts' nightmare (it had better), a 62-7 humiliation at the hands of the Saints, the team they narrowly lost to in the Super Bowl a little more than 20 months ago. The Saints' point total matched the highest ever by a team since the 1970 merger, and it highlighted the depths to which the Manning-less Colts have sank.

    It feels almost comical to point this out given the context, but in being its seventh loss of the season, Indy's defeat at New Orleans was something the Colts had avoided for the past 10 years. Indianapolis' league-high streak of nine consecutive seasons of 10 wins or more is officially over, and you can bet the mortgage at this point that the Colts' league-record-tying run of nine consecutive playoff trips (2002-10) will come to a crashing halt as well.

    How did it come to this? And historically speaking, has any team that has been this good ever fallen this far, this fast? Not that anyone needs reminding, but these Colts have played in two of the past five Super Bowls, and averaged more than 13 wins per year, including the playoffs, from 2002-10. And yet, winning even one game now seems a task larger than they're up to, and in New Orleans the Colts looked like a dispirited and mentally defeated team that had already spent its best effort in earlier losing causes this season (see narrow defeats against Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Kansas City).

    Indianapolis appears rudderless in terms of leadership at this point, with the job security of dazed third-year head coach Jim Caldwell already very much in question, and no difference-making moves forthcoming from the front office management team of club president Bill Polian and general manager Chris Polian, who have presided over this disaster as smoothly as Capt. Smith at the wheel of the Titanic (Manning injury = iceberg is roughly the equation at work here).

    And what to make of the Colts' other veteran stars not named Manning, who seem to be sleepwalking their way through this lost season? Team leaders like receiver Reggie Wayne, center Jeff Saturday and defensive end Robert Mathis are all scheduled for free agency in 2012, and they're not exactly creating a burgeoning market for their services by succinctly proving that the Colts were indeed a one-man team all along.

    Next man up? Not in Indy. You can save that cliché for elsewhere in the NFL, because the Colts are playing as if they've never really pulled themselves out of the mental fetal position they resorted to once Manning was lost. And not to underestimate the loss of middle linebacker Gary Brackett and strong safety Melvin Bullitt to season-ending shoulder injuries early on this year, but other teams have suffered significant injuries (see Houston in the Colts' AFC South) and not seen the bottom drop out to the tune of 0-7, with 62-7 final scores.

    But as admittedly crucial as Manning is to everything Indianapolis does on offense and defense -- a unit that was designed and constructed to play from ahead, not behind -- the complete crumbling of the Colts' season is still almost unfathomable. No one would have been surprised by a rare down season in Indy without No. 18 in the lineup, say a 3-4 or 2-5 start to the year, and no real contention in the AFC South. But winless through seven games? And a 55-point prime-time demolition on national TV? It's as if all the good karma of the past nine seasons in Indianapolis has been reversed and rained down on the Colts' heads in the span of two months. And you know what they say about paybacks.

    It's not a complete apples to apples comparison, but think back to what the 2008 New England Patriots faced when they lost their franchise quarterback, Tom Brady, to a season-ending injury in the first half of the opening game. The Patriots didn't go to the playoffs that year, but they had enough faith in head coach Bill Belichick that he would lead them out of the desert, and enough leadership in the locker room to go 11-5 that season and make something good out of a very bad situation.

    But I don't get the feeling there's the same level of confidence in Caldwell or leadership in the Colts' locker room to duplicate the Patriots' salvage job of 2008. This is a team that came very close to waving the white flag the other night in New Orleans, and you would think they owed it to their fans and to the league to better prepare and perform than what we saw against the Saints.

    I spent time digging through the NFL record book on Monday, searching for something, anything, to compare to this overnight and total collapse by the Colts, but it's just not there, football fans. There really is no parallel for the case-of-the-bends rapid descent that is unfolding in Indy this season. In terms of Super Bowl-era teams that had an extended run of success and then plummeted suddenly in the standings, these examples fit, but they don't match Indy's swoon:

    • The 1999 49ers collapsed to 4-12 in Steve Young final, injury-marred season, ending the franchise's NFL-record 16-year streak of 10-plus-win seasons. San Francisco had made the playoffs the previous seven years in a row, and a remarkable 15 times in those 16 seasons.

    • The 1994 Bills went 7-9 and sunk to fourth place in the five-team AFC East after making four consecutive Super Bowl runs from 1990 to '93. Buffalo started that year 5-3, but then an aging team faded in the second half of the season.

    • The 1968 Packers replaced retired head coach Vince Lombardi with Phil Bengston and posted a 6-7-1, third-place finish in the NFL Central after winning the first two Super Bowls in the previous two seasons.

    • The 1972 Colts, the Baltimore variety, went 5-9 and came in third in their division after winning the Super Bowl in 1970 and losing in the AFC title game in 1971. Colts general manager Joe Thomas dismantled that great Baltimore team almost overnight, shipping quarterback Johnny Unitas to San Diego after the season.

    • The 1990 Broncos stumbled to 5-11 and came in last in the AFC West after going to and losing the Super Bowl three times in the four-year span of 1986-89.

    • And the 1999 Broncos, coming off back-to-back Super Bowl titles, lost franchise quarterback John Elway to retirement, then started the season 2-6 en route to a 6-10, last-place finish in the AFC West.

    While some of those declines were indeed precipitous, nothing duplicates the Colts' 0-7 off-the-cliff results of 2011. It's as if Manning was the entire foundation of the pyramid in Indianapolis, and once he was pulled out, a collapse of epic proportions was inevitable.

    Perhaps we even saw the makings of the coming trouble last season, when the Colts and Manning had to struggle to 10-6 and into the playoffs, winning their last four games of the regular season after being 6-6 in the second week of December. Including the playoffs, Indy is just 5-12 in its most recent 17 games, and there is the possibility that even with Manning healthy this year, the Colts' long run of success would have come to a conclusion.

    For a team likened to the Atlanta Braves of the NFL -- years of playoff berths but just one championship to show for it -- the Colts may have just finally hit the wall, with the speed of their impact hastened significantly by Manning's absence.

    There is certainly enough blame to go around in Indy for the current meltdown, and I can't help but wonder if Colts fans would have preferred a season-long lockout over watching this debacle? From an organizational and coaching standpoint, the Polians and Caldwell and his staff have seemed wholly unprepared for life without Manning. The Colts probably lived on borrowed time in regards to Manning's recurring neck issues, and their lack of preparing a plausible fallback plan at quarterback finally bit them in the butt.

    In retrospect, the Kerry Collins signing in the preseason smacks of a desperation move that merely underlined the team's lack of faith in backup quarterback Curtis Painter, and sent an unspoken message of panic to the locker room, an opinion that Wayne voiced pretty clearly at the time. Again, the comparison to the '08 Patriots is fairly apt, because Matt Cassel was no more experienced than Painter was when he was forced to assume command of New England's offense, and yet that situation didn't result in a season-ruining disaster.

    The Colts thrived for so long thanks to how much Manning's unique talents dominated their offense, and helped control the game and field position for their defense. But now they are paying dearly for that level of dependence, because the reality is no quarterback can walk into the Colts huddle and remotely replicate what Manning did for and meant to Indy. Making the playoffs and winning at least 10 games in nine out of 10 years is an incredibly successful ratio. It's just a lot tougher to remind yourself of that happy fact during the one desultory season you have to suffer through.

    And who knows, the disaster of 2011 in Indianapolis might wind up being a Luck-y break, if it earns the Colts the right to draft Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck next April and sets the franchise up for another extended run of greatness. The pain brought on by the pursuit of a perfect season in reverse might well be worth it if the team's Manning era blends seamlessly into its Luck era.

    If that's the reality that awaits Indy, 2011 will be remembered very differently than it feels at the moment. But it isn't a fun ride the Colts are on these days, and their historic descent continues to pick up speed, showing no sign of ending any time soon.
    Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1bqGcHvdg

  • #2
    Re: SI Article about the Colts freefall

    Great article. 100% agreed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SI Article about the Colts freefall

      In all of the bad plays and injury after injury I have to say that Saturday has been playing at a really high level for his position. Hopefully he agrees to stay on with the Colts a few more years.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: SI Article about the Colts freefall

        Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
        In all of the bad plays and injury after injury I have to say that Saturday has been playing at a really high level for his position. Hopefully he agrees to stay on with the Colts a few more years.
        I don't know he's an FA in 2012 I could see them not bringing him back.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: SI Article about the Colts freefall

          I could have sworn that I had read that he will be a FA in 2012. I want to say it was sports illustrated when I was at the doctor's office.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: SI Article about the Colts freefall

            Saturday is a FA after the season. I'd prefer bringing him back, but only because there's no one on the roster that could take his spot and perform as well, which isn't really all that great recently. He's a second tier interior lineman now, if you can't pay him as such you've gotta move on.

            Who I do hope gets a promotion is that Ojinakka guy that's been playing RT for Diem. That guy's a nice player and extremely cheap. Would have no problem at all seeing him at RT for the rest of the way.

            Comment

            Working...
            X