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

Browns-Colts thread

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

  • Re: Browns-Colts thread

    Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
    ~BOOM~

    Hey!! By the way, Phillip Wilson in a recent article says that Luck is NOT calling his own plays.

    Comment


    • Re: Browns-Colts thread

      Originally posted by travmil View Post
      Yeah, especially as Kid pointed out that Luck, after 6 games is ahead of Peyton's first 6 games in every category.

      I'll not stand here and be confronted by the truth!
      I have not looked at the six games numbers. If he is ahead of Manning in TDs then Manning threw a ton of them in his last ten games. At the current rate, Luck finishes with 18. Manning had 26. Luck isn't getting to that number unless you think he is going to throw 19 in the next 10 games.......

      Comment


      • Re: Browns-Colts thread

        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
        So that's the best argument you got? He may not get there?

        Good to know he's so horrible because he ... "may not get there". Not that he isn't playing well enough to get there currently. Are we really shocked at Luck throwing more than Peyton as a rookie when Marshall Faulk was around to get the ball? That also means Peyton had Marshall Faulk to throw too. Besides that, the attempts don't matter when trying to claim Luck is only throwing for as many yards because of how many attempts he's getting when he's averaging more yards per attempt. Peyton only had 6 total TD's after 6 games. Luck has 10.

        So either they were both horrible, or neither are horrible. You make zero sense, as usual.
        Luck has 7 TD passes. The total doesn't matter to me because Peyton was good enough with his arm that he didn't have to run with ball.. Luck won't approach Peyton's 26 TD passes. He will stay at 53% completions and four other QBs are currently rated higher than Luck. I suppose all of them are going to be better than Manning?

        Comment


        • Re: Browns-Colts thread

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          Honestly, this discussion seems silly. Regardless of what you think about how great or not great the guy's gonna be, if you look at it objectively it's pretty easy to tell that at the very worst Luck will be an average starting qb in this league. He has no time to throw. Despite having 2 speedsters running around out there, freakishly athletic Fleener, and wily Reggie Wayne Luck's LONGEST pass of the year is shorter than basically every other starting qb. So he is stuck throwing to guys on 5-15 yard routes as the defense tees off on him. Appreciate the wins, acknowledge that even great qbs have those games that at the end they have to say "it wasn't pretty, but I'll take it.

          And Ol Blu, if you are right about Luck, you may as well root for a different team. If Luck is a flop, this team will lose the competitive edge it is still holding on to from the last 15 years and we will be stuck for another 5 or so before we can even retool again. How fun can it possibly be to be a fan of a team where you agree with literally none of the front office moves they make?
          This team has already lost its competitive edge that you talk about. It is currently residing in Denver.....

          Comment


          • Re: Browns-Colts thread

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            He is not having a great rookie season. His only great stat is total yards and that is because he is virtually allowed to throw whenever he wants to. 53% completion rate is TERRIBLE. He is only rated 5th in his own rookie class of QBs after today. You can make all of the excuses you want for him but he is not playing well. 7 TD in seven games is not overpowering and way behind what Peyton did.....
            Luck has played six games....

            Peyton only had 6 TDs in his first 6 games....

            How much more wrong can you be?


            Comment


            • Re: Browns-Colts thread

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              Luck has 7 TD passes. The total doesn't matter to me because Peyton was good enough with his arm that he didn't have to run with ball.. Luck won't approach Peyton's 26 TD passes. He will stay at 53% completions and four other QBs are currently rated higher than Luck. I suppose all of them are going to be better than Manning?
              Luck hasn't outplayed RGIII, but he's definitely outplaying 18 during his rookie season thus far. Honestly, it's not close.

              At this point in his career Manning had 4TD and 12 picks

              Luck's had 7 and 7.

              Comment


              • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                Why hasn't Luck outplayed RG3? What exactly is this based off of... hype?

                If I were to ask you who has more total yards per game, what would your answer be? And yes, I'm including rushing yards.

                If I were to ask you who has more passing touchdowns per game, what would your answer be?

                The media has talked up RG3 so much, you automatically assume RG3 is destroying everyone in the league in those categories, and he's not even leading Luck.

                And Luck has less team around him. I'm becoming more and more confident of that notion by the week... our team is pretty ******, personnel-wise. I'm learning that even the players I thought were decent aren't all that great. And it's getting worse with every injury we have.

                Oh, and when comparing to Peyton --- Luck isn't 7/7. He's 11/7. He's scored 4 on the ground, also. And Manning didn't have 12 picks -- he had 14. 11/7 to 4/14.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-22-2012, 11:07 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


                • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Why hasn't Luck outplayed RG3? What exactly is this based off of... hype?

                  If I were to ask you who has more total yards per game, what would your answer be? And yes, I'm including rushing yards.

                  If I were to ask you who has more passing touchdowns per game, what would your answer be?

                  The media has talked up RG3 so much, you automatically assume RG3 is destroying everyone in the league in those categories, and he's not even leading Luck.

                  And Luck has less team around him. I'm becoming more and more confident of that notion by the week... our team is pretty ******, personnel-wise. I'm learning that even the players I thought were decent aren't all that great. And it's getting worse with every injury we have.

                  Oh, and when comparing to Peyton --- Luck isn't 7/7. He's 11/7. He's scored 4 on the ground, also. And Manning didn't have 12 picks -- he had 14. 11/7 to 4/14.
                  Why are you screaming? yes Luck is pretty good but so far RG3 has been the best player, there is nothing wrong with that, both players are going to be great in my opinion.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    This team has already lost its competitive edge that you talk about. It is currently residing in Denver.....

                    No, I'm talking about the veteran defensive players + Reggie Wayne who know what it's like to win. How even though our defense has been below average for some time now, they still routinely make big plays at opportune times. The Colts have a winning culture, with 1 bad season out of a decade. That mentality is contagious, and I believe it is that more than Andrew Luck that is helping us to stay around .500. Is he playing great? No. Is he playing great considering he's a rookie? Emphatically yes.

                    The Colts have moved on. You need to as well. Peyton Manning could have restructured his deal to make it more cap friendly up front for him to stay here, but he didn't.. He could have agreed to allow the deadline to be pushed back (I understand his reasoning on not doing this one all the way though) to give the Colts a better understanding of his health situation, but he didn't. If he had agreed to do either of those, I would bet anything that Manning would still be a Colt and we would have auctioned off our #1 pick. It was Irsay's decision to cut Manning, but it was Manning's decision to leave.
                    Last edited by aamcguy; 10-22-2012, 11:39 AM.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Why hasn't Luck outplayed RG3? What exactly is this based off of... hype?

                      If I were to ask you who has more total yards per game, what would your answer be? And yes, I'm including rushing yards.

                      If I were to ask you who has more passing touchdowns per game, what would your answer be?

                      The media has talked up RG3 so much, you automatically assume RG3 is destroying everyone in the league in those categories, and he's not even leading Luck.

                      And Luck has less team around him. I'm becoming more and more confident of that notion by the week... our team is pretty ******, personnel-wise. I'm learning that even the players I thought were decent aren't all that great. And it's getting worse with every injury we have.

                      Oh, and when comparing to Peyton --- Luck isn't 7/7. He's 11/7. He's scored 4 on the ground, also. And Manning didn't have 12 picks -- he had 14. 11/7 to 4/14.
                      Easy, Luck is the 30th ranked QB in the NFL and he is trending down after his lousy performance against the Browns. RGIII is rated near the top. You can get lots of yards if you throw the ball a lot and Luck certainly does that. How about that 53% completion percentage while RGIII is leading the entire NFL with over 70%. RGIII is the third rated QB in the entire NFL. Luck is 32nd in the NFL in completion percentage. He is tied with Weeden for 32nd in QB rating. He is tied with the 7th most interceptions in the league. How bad does a QB have to be to be considered a bust. Weeden has three more TD passes than Luck.... You criticise RGIII for running too much but you laud Luck for having 4 rushing TDs. Those 4 TDs are not included in passer stats. Hard to have a pick when you run the ball but easy to get broken bones or other injuries.... Luck won't be close to Peyton by the end of this year except in the INT department probably.....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        No, I'm talking about the veteran defensive players + Reggie Wayne who know what it's like to win. How even though our defense has been below average for some time now, they still routinely make big plays at opportune times. The Colts have a winning culture, with 1 bad season out of a decade. That mentality is contagious, and I believe it is that more than Andrew Luck that is helping us to stay around .500. Is he playing great? No. Is he playing great considering he's a rookie? Emphatically yes.
                        How many of those players do you still think you have? Reggie Wayne, Mathis and Freeney and who else... Those days are gone my friend. Luck isn't play great by any measure. He is in last place among all of the starting rookie QBs. He is WAY behind RGIII......

                        Comment


                        • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Luck hasn't outplayed RGIII, but he's definitely outplaying 18 during his rookie season thus far. Honestly, it's not close.

                          At this point in his career Manning had 4TD and 12 picks

                          Luck's had 7 and 7.
                          Good start. That means Peyton had 22 TDs in his next ten games. Luck won't come close to that but he probably will have less picks....

                          Comment


                          • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Luck has played six games....

                            Peyton only had 6 TDs in his first 6 games....

                            How much more wrong can you be?
                            I wasn't talking about six games, I was talking about the season Peyton had and the season Luck will have unless he picks it up a lot. I think he will move in the other direction....

                            Comment


                            • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                              He is last place among rookies in efficiency. Is he last place in wins?

                              Also, since you're telling me our wins are NOT because of a winning culture, what are they the cause of? You've ruled out quarterback play, and you've ruled out a veteran presence. I guess there's only 1 scenario left. The opposing defenses are spending approximately 50% of their time doing cartwheels and handstands while Luck consistenly misses undefended receivers.

                              Also, as far as veterans I consider part of the old regime:
                              Reggie Wayne, Antonio Johnson, Robert Mathis, Dwight Freeney, Antoine Bethea, Jerraud Powers, and to a lesser extent Pat Angerer (who I understand hasn't been playing)

                              The offense got reworked, and the defense is next. But they still have the same mentality.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Why are you screaming? yes Luck is pretty good but so far RG3 has been the best player, there is nothing wrong with that, both players are going to be great in my opinion.
                                Hey get out of here with this crazy idea that both QBs are going to end up great, didn't you know this was a one way street?


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X