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

Luck so far

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

  • #16
    Re: Luck so far

    Luck has done very very well with the team he has under him. Not a lot of talent besides Reggie Wayne offensively and a bottom league defense, he has still been able to win games and perform well
    Smothered Chicken!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Luck so far

      Andrew Luck...Hey, that guy's pretty good!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Luck so far

        If the Colts somehow win 9 games, Andrew Luck should get MVP consideration.
        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Luck so far

          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          If the Colts somehow win 9 games, Andrew Luck should get MVP consideration.
          Does this mean you're backing off the 12 win prediction?
          Never half-a** two things. Whole-a** one thing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Luck so far

            Originally posted by CompACE View Post
            Does this mean you're backing off the 12 win prediction?
            Lol. I thought I predicted 10 wins. 12 is a reach at this point, but I'm still confident in 10
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Luck so far

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              Lol. I thought I predicted 10 wins. 12 is a reach at this point, but I'm still confident in 10
              Can't knock you for being optimistic. And you're right, if the Colts were able to manage to win 10 games, Luck would definitely have to be considered an MVP candidate.

              I'll settle for 4-6 wins and Luck being a ROTY candidate
              Never half-a** two things. Whole-a** one thing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Luck so far

                Dudes, check out this data, should make you appreciate Mr. Luck even more:

                http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/b...overtime-rules

                Line: Opened Colts minus-3, currently the same
                Sharp says: "If you had to name the top 3 teams in explosive passing offenses this season, no one likely would have the Indianapolis Colts. Surprisingly, their 11 receptions of 20+ yards and one reception of 40+ put them tied with Baltimore, Detroit and Philadelphia as most explosive passing offenses so far this season. And perhaps as a result of that aggressiveness, their opponents have been called for the fourth most penalty yardage of any team in the league.

                Meanwhile, they have been called for just 70 total yards in penalties, third fewest in the league. The net difference, therefore, in the Colts' favor are No. 1 in the league.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Luck so far

                  He has shown that he is clutch. Two drives in the final minutes with no timeouts and puts the team in a position to win.
                  Smothered Chicken!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Luck so far

                    He's going to be an absolute monster by the time he is in year 4 or 5 of his career.

                    Hopefully we can build up a line for him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Luck so far

                      Honestly, he's going to be a monster by next year IMO. I'll admit I was always cautiously optimistic about him, and I even still think RGIII may have the higher ceiling, but Luck just "gets it". I don't even know how to explain it. He has that vibe to him that all great athletes have. I mean already thought by week 3 of his rookie year that he would put us in a position to win. Which says a lot considering how bad the rest of the team is. The one thing that has baffled me more than anything though is this, why did Stanford even bother running the ball.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Luck so far

                        I disagree about RG3's ceiling, I think it's way lower.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          I disagree about RG3's ceiling, I think it's way lower.
                          I don't know. Athletically RGIII is a freak, not to say Luck is a bad athlete or anything like that. Their ceilings are higher than just about any QB ever IMO. Vick is maybe the only guy who had a higher ceiling coming into the league, but as we all know ceilings are pretty useless if you don't have the ladder to get there or whatever. Point being RGIII is a world class sprinter with a cannon arm, what makes it ridiculous is that Luck runs the same 40 time as Cam Newton yet most people would probably never put them in the same class athletically. Yet Luck is in that class and is IMO at least, already a better passing QB.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Luck so far

                            RG3 is faster than Luck, that's about all I'll give him. Either way, what has athleticism done for Vick? RG3 is not even as athletic as Vick. And I'm not saying RG3 is Vick --- I'm saying athleticism only takes someone so far. If Michael Vick can't make it in this league as an elite quarterback (which he isn't) because of his athleticism, then how will RG3? Remember how Vick was sposed to revolutionize the QB position 10 years ago? It didn't happen --- the guy who revolutionized the game was a big tall immobile goofy guy who just so happened to have an Intel processor as a brain. And Vick is most certainly a passing quarterback now, just like RG3... He's already gettin the snot knocked out of him 3 games in and whining about how physical the game is, and that's with a line better than Luck's. Not like Luck isn't a good runner either, he reminds me of Steve Young. He'll get 20-50 yards a game on the ground, and a bunch of crucial first downs. I watch RG3 trying to ram it in from the 1-yard line with his more frail frame (I know he's like 6'2", 220" but he doesn't look "thick", he looks spindly) and I just cringe.... he's gonna get injured.

                            And at the end of the day, where I think Luck just absolutely destroys Bob is his mind. Not to say Bob is stupid, he's very smart... but Luck is out of this world smart --- Peyton smart. Damn near photographic, instant-recall smart. He's doing things with reading defenses and making adjustments now that RG3 has never sniffed. Not to say Bob can't get pretty good at it, but I just don't think he'll ever be on Luck's plateau in that category. I also think Luck just has a way larger arsenal of throws at his disposal. RG3 is a good passer, he just can't make all the throws that Luck can.

                            I know RG3 gets everyone's hype juices flowing, but when I compare them A to B, Luck just kills RG3 in so many of the crucial quarterbacking categories. It's not even close. RG3 *might* be able to throw the ball farther (I still think that's mostly not justified, he does uncork it more often, but I don't think he can throw it any farther than Luck, watching Luck throw it 75-yards in the air on pro day), and he can definitely run a 40-yard dash faster --- and those are seriously the only two traits that I can say RG3 exceeds Luck in. It's just not enough. WHen it all shakes out a few years from now, it'll be pretty obvious that the RG3 hype was pretty silly.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-25-2012, 12:56 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


                            • #29
                              Re: Luck so far

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Honestly, he's going to be a monster by next year IMO.

                              Oh I agree that he will be a beast next year. He is already pretty freaking good. But there will be bumps along the way, as there were with Manning. I'm just saying by the time he hits year 5 or so, he will absolutely be shredding teams. By then he will hopefully have a very solid line.

                              I keep thinking about that Giants-Panthers game the other night. Eli had all the time in the world to pick them apart, and some no-name back ran for well over 100 yards and picked up two touchdowns. Then the announcers mentioned that everyone on the Giants O-Line had been in the league for at least 7 seasons. No wonder the Giants are so good. I still think they are the team to beat.

                              Hopefully Luck gets a line like that someday.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Luck so far

                                Luck is averaging damn near 300 yards a game. Think about that over 16 games. Almost 4800 yards. Newton set the record, but he got off to a ridiculous start last year, and then trailed off big time, stringing together a bunch of 150 yard games towards the end.

                                There are two types of quarterbacks in this league --- quarterbacks who the league figures out... and quarterbacks who figure out the league. Luck is going to figure out this league. This league is figuring out Newton, and they're going to figure out RG3. WHen you watch Newton last year, he got figured out as the season went on, and this year it's even more obvious. It comes down to having the ability to learn and recall.... Luck is just a freak in this category. Peyton is a freak. The Vicks/RG3s/Newtons of the world, they don't have that. It's just what it is. And before someone throws out race --- if you want to know a QB that I think is in the same category as Luck/Peyton --- it's Russell Wilson. He reminds me SO much of Brees, who is another QB without a lot of athleticism but he figured out the league. If you wanted me to say who's going to be the better QB in 5 years between Griffin and Wilson --- I'll go Wilson. And while we're on the topic of QBs I think will figure out this league... I like Tannehill, too. It's too bad the Miami organization might ruin that kid... I think he's got a lot of stuff.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-25-2012, 01:05 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

                                Working...
                                X