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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • Re: Non-Colts thread

    I don't think RG3 is bad... I don't think the 'Skins didn't earn a hard-earned division champ. I don't think a ROY is more important than some playoff wins. I obviously hope that Luck and the Colts have much team success in the post-season.

    Success and awards aren't an either/or thing for me as it is for some of you obviously. Every time I even mention a ROY, I get a lot of "who cares, I want wins" responses. Well no ****. I do too. You might as well say "who cares about food, I want oxygen to survive." Here's a little hint --- You can have both. And why not?

    When I watch these guys with my own eyes and put everything into perspective with my football knowledge, I see a stud in Luck, a slightly lesser stud in Wilson, and a bit of fool's gold with RG3. That's it. The fool's gold will fool a lot of fools, lol. I see the system they're running, I see the stats he's putting up, it makes sense. I know where this story will eventually end. I see holes in his game that he's yet to answer for me, namely running a true pro style offense, which I personally believe he's going to HAVE to figure out eventually if he's going to be this so called "greatest player in history". These options and spreads and west-coasts hybrids aren't going to get him there. And I don't know if he has what it takes to do it.

    Wilson is a straight-up baller; I was turned on to him by Gruden and after watching his footage, I whole-heartedly agreed. Under-exposed, under-rated, and mostly because he came on late at Wisconsin being there only 1 year, and he's short. To me he's an athletic Drew Brees --- which is absolutely lethal. He's a pocket passer first and he's fantastic at it, but he's even more fantastic moving around to extend plays and he has absolutely killer instincts.

    Luck to me, though, is performing small miracles. He started with and continues to have the worst overall team. A team that gave up 300+ yards rushing just a week ago. An o-line that still cannot protect him. Very small resemblance of a running game. NOthing but rookie receivers to throw to (minus Wayne). He's playing in Peyton Manning's shadow. I don't see Wilson or RG3 being able to do that last one. I'm sorry. Manning is, as of now, the greatest player to play, and he's still playing... and Luck walked inot the house that the greatest player ever built and had to take over, and he produced 11 wins and broke numerous records and had the highest usage and most on his shoulders, all while dealing with a coach that was damn near dying. And he's out there running his own offense and calling most of his own plays; which the other two are not. To me, the context and the results aren't even close when considering the three. Luck is the real man amongst this group of man-childs. To me it's like the NBA draft of 2003 --- LeBron, Carmelo, DWade, and Bosh all went early... all were very good to great players.... but it's no contest as to who eventually was the best player in that group. Even if DWade won a ring first. I've made multiple mentions about Luck being the NFL version of LeBron in regards to smarts, athleticism, size, strength, vision --- that total package that LeBron posseses. Luck, to me, possesses the same rare traits, but Luck even exceeds a young LeBron in leadership and maturity and clutchness.

    Outside of all of that context, look at wins. Luck and Wilson tied, RG3, slightly less. Total touchdowns, Wilson > Luck > RG3. Total yards, Luck > RG3 > Wilson. Records, Luck >>>> RG3 and Wilson.

    Luck played in a deep vertical, and therefore, the most error-prone offense, while RG3 played in the least. That explains Lucks much higher yardage and attempts, but also his lower completion percentage and more INTs. RG3 threw it way less often, and when he did throw, it was usually short, high-completion rate passes with high YAC, and when he did go to throw deep he faced way less defensive backfield coverage because they were all up in run support, whereas Luck was constantly throwing into double and triple coverage because nobody respected Indy's run game and they dropped more back in coverage. RG3 led all in YAC which is more system than individual.

    So context-wise, I think Luck wins easily. Stat-wise, RG3 really isn't even the top guy there, either --- and yet all you really hear is RG3 is going ot get this thing. That doesn't make sense to me and that's why I look at hype and exposure and his "cool factor" as to why he's going to steal this thing.

    Based off actual football achievements and not hype, I think the ROY voting should be Luck > Wilson > RG3. I'd place more importance on Morris, but I'd just get laughed out of the building, because "he gets all of his stats from RG3", ya know...

    I still think that order is how it will play out 3-5 years from now.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-31-2012, 05:26 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


    • Re: Non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Being a champ of a weak divison for a long time I never hung my hate on that... Its about as stupid as it gets IMO as a fan. Does it matter in the long run? Not really and as a fan I know that my team is not likely to win another game which is the same as the redskins. I don't think that is meaningful in the least but if the either the Colts or the Redskins get to the superbowl then I will be shocked and all praise should go to them IMO. Do I expect that to happen this year? No..
      really? I expect both to win at least one game, maybe 2.

      Maybe im just crazy ?

      Comment


      • Re: Non-Colts thread

        I see it RG3, then luck, but I digress

        and of you watched at least half the games you'd realize why your laughing is out of place. With no RG3 running that zone read Morris doesn't grt half of his yards.

        And thats no knock on the young man. He had an amazing season, but a huge part pf his gains this yr was off of the dive option or triple wing option

        Comment


        • Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
          I see it RG3, then luck, but I digress

          and of you watched at least half the games you'd realize why your laughing is out of place. With no RG3 running that zone read Morris doesn't grt half of his yards.

          And thats no knock on the young man. He had an amazing season, but a huge part pf his gains this yr was off of the dive option or triple wing option
          My argument against that is if MOrris benefitted from a system, how did RG3 *not* benefit from it? I think that's setting a double standard, and why I think all these arguments fall through. It's not fair to say Morris benefits from a system, but RG3 does not. Of course RG3 benefits from that college option hybrid --- it's taking the league by storm right now and he's racking up production. Regardless, if we're going on pure results, even if you honestly think Morris got all his production because of RG3, Morris still executed a ridiculously amazing season, statistically. 1600+ yards, 13 touchdowns.... that's a damn good season. That's Adrian Peterson-type production. And last night was the most important game of the year for Wash, and who did they ride? Not a slightly gimpy RG3 --- they pounded the ball 33 times with Morris. He had 200 yards and 3 touchdowns. This is the NFL, you don't get your stats from the guy standing next to you, at some point in time you're at least mostly responsible for your own production. That was moneyball time, and Morris is who they rode.

          As much hype as RG3, his season statistically was.... okay. It wasn't amazing. I think a 3200 yard season by a quarterback is less impressive than a 1600 yard season by a running back... and this isn't even a running league anymore, really.

          I too cracked up about the "throwing dimes"... RG3 threw it 18 times. And as bad as the Cowgirls are, they weren't giving RG3 much respect run-wise, they knew he was gimped... so how Morris got all his yards because they were focused on RG3 is beyond my reasoning. Ball don't lie.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-31-2012, 05:34 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


          • Re: Non-Colts thread

            RG3 sis benefit from the system. They only cut back on the otpion plays. But rhey definotly cut back big time the middle of the season. Ot seems lately they just want him to learn to slide more

            i agree morris has been money all season, and the zone blocking scheme has been huge. Of course the oline has been great as well

            as for your last point, we killed them with pa passrs in dallas. They had 2 safties deep all game. They dared us to run the ball.....and as you said ball dont lie

            Comment


            • Re: Non-Colts thread

              Not a very smart gameplan on Dallas' behalf to dare the best running team in the league to run. "Hey, let's let them use their strength and take away the weaker side of their offense and see if it works."

              'Course, no one said Dallas was a good team or very smart. Either that, or they just figured they had no chance at stopping the run, so they just let it come. 274 rushing yards allowed usually results in a loss... unless you're the Colts.
              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: Non-Colts thread

                These rookie class of QBs has been outstanding. Lets not take away from any of them. The teams who drafted QBs last year were very fortunate, well with the exception of Cleveland. In regards to the success the Redskins had with RG3 was out I think that has much more to do with how good Kirk Cousins is then anything else. I don't think Cousins will end up being nearly as good as RG3 but I think Cousins would have started and enjoyed some success had he been on a handful of other teams in the league this year. If he turns out to be a decent QB that will just make this year's class of QBs even better.

                Comment


                • Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Young View Post
                  These rookie class of QBs has been outstanding. Lets not take away from any of them. The teams who drafted QBs last year were very fortunate, well with the exception of Cleveland. In regards to the success the Redskins had with RG3 was out I think that has much more to do with how good Kirk Cousins is then anything else. I don't think Cousins will end up being nearly as good as RG3 but I think Cousins would have started and enjoyed some success had he been on a handful of other teams in the league this year. If he turns out to be a decent QB that will just make this year's class of QBs even better.
                  The Skins are probably going to get a decent package for Cousins, especially since they had to trade some of this upcoming draft to get RGIII.

                  They're all really good QB's, and even Weeden and Tannehill were decent. I would say though that I had at least heard from Bill Simmons before the season that he thought the Seahawks would be a playoff team and because of Russell Wilson. (think he even picked them to go to the Super Bowl, though he said they would win the division)
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment


                  • Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                    I'm done arguing with Colts fans rarely find unbiased ones I just find most of them ridcoulous.
                    No one cares who you argue with.

                    That Seattle-Washington game is going to be sweet. Can't wait for the playoffs.
                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Non-Colts thread

                      According to Schefter the Niners have signed Billy Cundiff as their kicker

                      I see Lil Harbaugh didn't talk to Big Harbaugh on this one.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Non-Colts thread

                        RGIII's getting beat to hell out there. If the Colts had drafted him, he'd probably be dead right now.

                        The Colts must have loaned Seattle a couple of guys from their OL for this game.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Non-Colts thread

                          RG3 just tore his ACL.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Non-Colts thread

                            And Griffin's hurt again. Poor guy, OlBlu really put a jinx on him.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Non-Colts thread

                              That was a blatant PI.

                              Seahawks with 24 unanswered points.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                                What happened? I'm not watching.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X