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

  • #76
    Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    I don't see how anyone could be anything but optomistic after today. I wouldn't have put much stock in this preseason game if Luck had been sacked two or three times and threw three interceptions. I think everyone should take that same approach when things went well. What I also saw was that every QB we played tore the Rams up and they looked just as good as Luck did. Does that mean we have three superstar QBs on the roster? I don't think so, I think it is an "alert" that much of what we saw today was a Rams team that has a very bad defense. But, even saying that, Luck did look very good. I just know that when we were doing our best, we lost about every preseason game we played. I hope this isn't a sign in reverse!! ...
    Quite a reversal of course there, Blu, on your stance on Luck... if you'd ingested as much information as you've been claiming and listened to us, you would have already realized that Luck is the real deal. And the fact you're just now recognizing all 3 of our quarterbacks shows you haven't really been keeping up with this team. Most of us could tell you that all 3 QBs we have right now are all better than every QB we used last year, and I predict Harnisch will supplant Stanton as the #2 eventually, that kid is the real deal. His first drive in the 2nd half was impressive as hell and exactly what all his followers have been saying about him. I see a starting job for Harnisch sometime in his career, which is quite impressive for a Mr. Irrelevant. I still say you'll be surprised by this team this year. I'm not thinking playoffs, but we should have a better record than last year, by a fair margin. Been saying 4-6 wins. That O-line won't be as bad as you think.
    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


    • #77
      Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      there's not enough evidence yet, but Luck may be the best QB in the AFC South
      I have seen enough after today. Luck is the top QB in the South, and already a top 10 NFL QB. Schaub isn't elite, and Luck showed that he could be elite as soon as this season
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

        I think it was Lou Holtz who once said "You're never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you're never as bad as they say when you lose". There seemed to be a lot of bright spots from this game, especially from Luck, but I don't think it is much of an indicator on how this season will go. Still though, it is so hard not to get excited about this team. Maybe not based on what they will do this season but what they are likely to do beyond. I won't lie, I really started to get excited after the draft. I was ready for today.

        I am not expecting a winning season from the Colts this year. The one thing I want to see is Luck protected. You can't have him get the snot beat out of him week after week. That offensive line concerns me. With that said we did get to see Luck under pressure a little bit today and I was impressed with how he reacted.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

          Good atmosphere from the fans yesterday and the place looked full from my seats. One thing we learned is Donald Brown still can't block.
          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


          • #80
            Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

            Originally posted by Young View Post
            I think it was Lou Holtz who once said "You're never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you're never as bad as they say when you lose". .
            Well, if Lou Holtz didn't say it, Coach Pagano said it after yesterday's game himself....
            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


            • #81
              Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

              I keep reading a lot of comments by noobies saying that his first TD was not a big deal, all the credit should go to Brown.... completely not true. The QB has to choose the correct play and then make the correct check-downs for the most success. It wasn't a long pass, but it was the correct choice, and a major major play for a rookie to make. That play wasn't something you'd see a rookie do often at all, very heady and ahead of his years. He put his guys in the best place to succeed. Was mostly on Luck, Brown wasn't even touched, all he had to do was pick his lane and run for daylight. I'm sure the temptation for Luck to go for the home run bomb on his first throw was huge and instead he showed patience and threw a 1-yard throw that went 63 for the TD --- just as effective. That was a play we'd label Manning a genius for, and all these noobs are saying it was just luck... silliness.

              Manning's first career TD throw to Harrison was only a 6-yarder that Harrison turned into a 48-yard TD.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-13-2012, 09:29 AM.
              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


              • #82
                Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                I keep reading a lot of comments by noobies saying that his first TD was not a big deal, all the credit should go to Brown.... completely not true. The QB has to choose the correct play and then make the correct check-downs for the most success. It wasn't a long pass, but it was the correct choice, and a major major play for a rookie to make. That play wasn't something you'd see a rookie do often at all, very heady and ahead of his years. He put his guys in the best place to succeed. Was mostly on Luck, Brown wasn't even touched, all he had to do was pick his lane and run for daylight.
                Most rookies would have either been sacked, or rushed the throw. Andrew kept his composure like a veteran, and threw the ball at the perfect time.
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                  Originally posted by Young View Post
                  I think it was Lou Holtz who once said "You're never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you're never as bad as they say when you lose". There seemed to be a lot of bright spots from this game, especially from Luck, but I don't think it is much of an indicator on how this season will go. Still though, it is so hard not to get excited about this team. Maybe not based on what they will do this season but what they are likely to do beyond. I won't lie, I really started to get excited after the draft. I was ready for today.

                  I am not expecting a winning season from the Colts this year. The one thing I want to see is Luck protected. You can't have him get the snot beat out of him week after week. That offensive line concerns me. With that said we did get to see Luck under pressure a little bit today and I was impressed with how he reacted.

                  All of this was well said...... ...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    I have seen enough after today. Luck is the top QB in the South, and already a top 10 NFL QB. Schaub isn't elite, and Luck showed that he could be elite as soon as this season
                    What? You are a dreamer. Yes, he looked very good but he hasn't played a real game yet. ...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                      In all likelihood, it appears the first couple years of Luck's career will be very similar to Peyton's. A strong offense coupled with an unbearably bad defense. I really like our WR core if they all stay healthy, Wayne, Collie, Hilton, Fleener, Allen is a great mix of targets in this day and age. Wild card is the o-line obviously. I also think D-Brown will be a 1,000 yard rusher, which is blowing my mind considering I've never been a big fan, but he's impressed me lately.


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        ...and all these noobs are saying it was just luck...
                        Well, techincially won't ALL of Andrew's passes be Luck?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          What? You are a dreamer. Yes, he looked very good but he hasn't played a real game yet. ...
                          I may be jumping the gun slighty, but his play will be just as stellar in the regular season. I have seen nothing to suggest that Luck will become just ordinary in the regular seeson
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            I may be jumping the gun slighty, but his play will be just as stellar in the regular season. I have seen nothing to suggest that Luck will become just ordinary in the regular seeson
                            I hope you are right but I doubt it seriously...... Nothing wrong with be enthusiastic.... ...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                              It's a double-edged sword.... the defenses we face in the regular season will be stiffer, but our offense will also have gelled even more by then, so what we're seeing now is likely a good indicator of things to come if you extrapolate improvement of both our offense and opposing team's defenses... of course you gotta expect a few more turnovers and failed drives, etc... Teams aren't showing their hand on defense, but we probly aren't showing our hand on offense, either, and that's sorta scary to think about.

                              Imagine being Collie and Brown and those young guys who came in towards the end of the Peyton regime and didn't know what direction things were going, and then friggin' Andrew Luck falls in your lap and that's who you're catching passes from now... they gotta be like, "Thank you, Lord."

                              From what I'm reading this morning, it sounds like Indiana is finally coming around on Luck. If you look at the improvement Manning made from his rookie year to his 4th-5th year, and then consider that Luck could (should) make a similar improvement, I think that's starting to dawn on people how freakin' good this kid is gonna be.

                              People may still think I'm crazy, but I've believed Luck was already a top 15 NFL QB, and by the end of this season it could be top 10. What's crazy is we're in a sort of golden age of quarterbacks, but if you look at the list of top QBs right now, there's only maybe five that I would take over Luck *right now*, but if you consider the future, I wouldn't take a single one over Luck. He's special.... special special special.

                              I'm a massive Manning fan, watched every damn throw he made for 14 years, I cannot express enough how much that man has done for this organization... he is Colts' J.esus for all I'm concerned, so I say this with all due respect because it's crazy to even consider it, but Luck at this same point is better than Manning *across the board* except for release time, in which he's only slightly slower than Manning. It's not an easy thing to say that a guy could be better than Peyton Manning, but I'm sitting here thinking it's possible... very very possible. I don't think a lot of the more casual fans believe me when I say that to them... it took me awhile to accept it, but it dawned on me a few months back when reading/watching articles and footage --- "Holy ****.... he's better. This kid is farther along than Manning at the same age and has a stronger skillset..."

                              I've been calling him the NFL's version of LeBron James... seriously. He's huge, freakishly athletic, too smart, makes his teammates better --- but without the ego.
                              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-13-2012, 02:11 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


                              • #90
                                Re: Preseason Week 1: Rams @ Colts

                                The key to the offense is the line. If they are able to form a cohesive unit, our offense will be pretty good.

                                Defense, I'm hoping we can pick up a corner or 2 on waivers, because otherwise we are going to get eaten alive. I did like what I saw yesterday regarding pressure. Oh, and let's hope Angerer isn't hurt too bad. That would be a big blow.
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X