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

Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

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

  • #91
    Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

    Yea, the line is the big question, and to be honest I sort of question our running game.... but.....

    Luck is uncanny in his ability to create time for himself and avoid the rush and has 4 sets of eyes on the back of his head. He is ridiculous in a clean pocket but he's also pretty f'n good when flushed out. Like I said, it's like his upper body is independent from his lower body when it sets up to throw --- whether he's planted stationary or on a full sprint out --- he throws the ball with almost the same motion, strength, accuracy.... it's just nuts.

    Ideally we'd want Luck throwing from a clean pocket, but as evidenced yesterday and what some of us have been saying for awhile, he knows when to get out, has fantastic athleticism and can still make a play on the run to a high degree of success.... flushing him out of the pocket isn't necessarily a good thing for opposing defenses.

    He's like a doppelganger of all the best QBs in the game today... you think of Manning, you know he had his particular style, strengths and weaknesses, and you can do that with every QB, but with Luck, it's like you check off all the great QBs greatest strengths --- in one guy. He throws on the run like Rodgers, he memorizes and recalls plays and audibles and makes every throw like Manning, he improvises like Roethlisberger, he shifts in the pocket like Brady, he runs like Tebow, he throws a ball as pretty as Vick or Brees...
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-13-2012, 04:01 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


    • #92
      Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

      Let's pump the breaks here, Luck better than Manning in everything but release time? Sorry, but I can't believe that. Manning has always been maniacal about preparation and being smarter than everyone else, Manning was great at that from day 1. Not saying Luck isn't good at that, but come on it's tough for me to say he's better than Manning was as a rookie after one preseason game. Plus game has changed since Manning was a rook, defenses were allowed to be much more physical then, so even comparing Manning's rookie year to Luck's come January may not be fair.


      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

        It is very tough, but you need to start believing it, lol...

        My thoughts on Luck weren't formed after 1 preseason game --- that preseason game displayed what I've been known about him for the past year. It's not like he played out of his mind for that game --- that was standard Luck. He's been doing this... all he did was do it on an NFL field for everyone to see, and he's going to continue right on doing it.

        This is how everyone reacts to him --- "Oh he can't be that good, he's all hype" and then after a few games, they *all* change to: "Holy ****, this dude is gooooooood...."

        You know how the scouts and experts say he has no flaws in his game? It's unbelievably true. Even with Manning you could say he had happy feet, didn't throw a pretty ball, wasn't very mobile, could sometimes make bad forces, couldn't win the "big one" for a long time, etc.... I can't find anything with Luck. Seriously. Maybe "needs to work on his interview skills"??
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-13-2012, 02:29 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


        • #94
          Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

          Yeah, but you're acting like that's not how people reacted to Peyton.


          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            It is very tough, but you need to start believing it, lol...

            My thoughts on Luck weren't formed after 1 preseason game --- that preseason game displayed what I've been known about him for the past year. It's not like he played out of his mind for that game --- that was standard Luck. He's been doing this... all he did was do it on an NFL field for everyone to see, and he's going to continue right on doing it.
            I agree with everything you have written about Luck in this thread. It is crazy to think that a rookie is already a top 10 QB, but Luck is simply that good. I would rank him just below the elite QB's: Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Eli. Luck will prove all the doubters wrong week 1 vs Chicago
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Yeah, but you're acting like that's not how people reacted to Peyton.
              As a rookie, Peyton was just Ok. He exploded his second season. Luck will have this same explosion this year. Its already happening
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                I was more impressed by TY Hilton, Quan Cosby, and LaVon Brazill. They looked like they could be solid backup wide receivers. That Winston Justice trade was a horrible mistake but I think the left side of the line is going to be pretty good.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  Yeah, but you're acting like that's not how people reacted to Peyton.
                  You were 10 when Manning made his first TD pass to Harrison. I know what it was like when Peyton came to Indy, we all were ecstatic, I remember touting Manning when half the friggin board (back then most of us were on IndyStar forums) said we made a mistake not taking Leaf, I remember clearly how good he was at particular things, and I remember clearly the things he needed to work on, which he did, and is why by his 4th-5th season he was setting records.

                  Luck is simply no joke. I've had the pleasure of seeing both Manning and Luck come on board, I can look at both objectively, and say with a straight face that Luck has Manning topped in many many categories.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                    Manning's rookie season was just OK? At the time it was regarded as one of the greatest rookie years of any QB ever from a statistical standpoint. I get I was "only 10" when Manning was a rookie, but that is sort of irrelevant to the conversation. A 10 year old is pretty capable of watching football on television. Luck may put up better stats this year, I don't know and neither do you, but the one thing we do know is that it is happening in a different era, an era mind you that Manning helped to usher in.

                    Also, acting like the city is not ecstatic over Luck is just flat out silly. People were sporting Luck jerseys at games around week 10 of last season.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                      You think everything is silly, 'cause you're 24 and know everything.

                      The "ecstaticness" is about to reach way higher levels. There are a LOT of people still hitched to Manning's wagon, man... all the casuals I talk to every day still hate the Colts for getting rid of Manning and a lot of them didn't even know there was a preseason game yesterday.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                        You know a great way to talk to someone is to continue patronizing them over their age, that certainly shows that you are mature and know what you are talking about.

                        Peyton holds the rookie records for most TDs in a season (26), most consecutive games with a TD pass (13), most games with at least one TD pass (15), most games with 300+ yards passing (4). Saying that Manning was just "OK" his rookie season couldn't be further from the truth. I guess Cam Newton's season last year was just "OK". And remember this was a time when QBs had not been unleashed like they are now.

                        That season Peyton was second in passes completed, first in passes attempted, third in passing yards, fifth in passing TDs, fifth in passing yards per game, third in sack percentage.

                        The only thing you can ding him on was the interceptions, which were plentiful, but saying that his rookie season was just "OK"? Man, you must have pretty high standards.
                        Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-13-2012, 02:50 PM.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                          No more than saying someone is silly. Let's get back to football.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            You know a great way to talk to someone is to continue patronizing them over their age, that certainly shows that you are mature and know what you are talking about.

                            Peyton holds the rookie records for most TDs in a season (26), most consecutive games with a TD pass (13), most games with at least one TD pass (15), most games with 300+ yards passing (4). Saying that Manning was just "OK" his rookie season couldn't be further from the truth. I guess Cam Newton's season last year was just "OK". And remember this was a time when QBs had not been unleashed like they are now.

                            That season Peyton was second in passes completed, first in passes attempted, third in passing yards, fifth in passing TDs, fifth in passing yards per game.

                            The only thing you can ding him on was the interceptions, which were plentiful, but saying that his rookie season was just "OK"? Man, you must have pretty high standards.
                            Dunno if you're saying I claimed that, but just to clarify, I didn't. Manning's rookie season was prolific, set rookie records, so you didn't hear that from me. He had the best rookie season in history until Newton's last year.

                            [EDIT] You're responding to Pacergeek, nm.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                              No, Pacergeek said that Peyton's rookie year was just OK.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                No, Pacergeek said that Peyton's rookie year was just OK.
                                From a statistical standpoint, Peyton's TD numbers and yardage as a rookie were outstanding. However, he had a high INT number, and only won 3 games. That is why I considered it an "ok" rookie year. Mark my words, Luck will crush Peyton's rookie records this year
                                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X