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

So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

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

  • #31
    Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    Spectacular? No but compared to Caldwell probably for me I think Dungy would've adjusted because unlike Caldwell Dungy has coached in the NFL without Manning as a QB. It seemed like Caldwell was a placeholder at best to me.
    That is a really good point.

    We should have never essentially let Tony Dungy appoint Caldwell to HC without the team conducting a legit coaching search by interviewing outside candidates. Thankfully Irsay seems to have learned his lesson. With Pagano, we did it the right way by interviewing outside candidates and hiring a guy who had been the coordinator for an elite defense in Baltimore. That's how you conduct a coaching search.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

      Caldwell was really nice to tank for Luck. Even though it got him fired and he never got to coach him. Way to take one for the team! Same for Jeff Saturday and all those guys who got cut!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

        Speaking of Caldwell, can you tell me why he always had that look of puzzlement on his face?
        Never forget

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

          Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
          Speaking of Caldwell, can you tell me why he always had that look of puzzlement on his face?
          Puzzlement would mean an expression was involved he had dead eyes.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

            Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
            As I have said before, I wasn't watching the sport in the past but have watched some old games from the 00's. I keep reading about the flawed defense of the past years. Was it more personnel wise (certain inadequate players, short etc) or strategically? Or both?

            Whatever it is, must be refreshing to see the Colts changing direction this year with their moves on defense.
            To me it was 100% strategic. I can't be bothered to go back and look at the numbers again (I've done this before) but during about a six year run the Colts were either 1st or 2nd every year in points per drive, but rank damn near dead last in drives per game. Our defense was near the bottom in run D almost every year, we forced very few turnovers, and the average drive time against us was always one of the worst.

            Essentially we had the most efficient offense in the NFL, but our defensive strategy was to take no risks and to allow time-eating drives in the hopes we wouldn't let the other team score a touchdown. IMO, if you have the most dynamic offense, then your defense should be risk taking, trying to increase the amount of possessions per game, not decrease them.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

              Originally posted by Rogco View Post
              IMO, if you have the most dynamic offense, then your defense should be risk taking, trying to increase the amount of possessions per game, not decrease them.
              Thanks.

              Agree with what you say. We had the best offense and maybe we had the philosophy that "whatever you do, we will outscore you" but what we did against Chicago in the Super Bowl was the best tactic imo. Their defense was most of the time on the field and were really tired at some point. Granted that happened cause there was few fumbles and a couple of picks from their part but still their offense didn't see the field a lot.
              Never forget

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                For the record, I think Polian handled himself poorly with the media and public; and throwing the perfect season was a terrible thing.

                But anyone who doesn't recognize him as one of the great team builders the league has ever seen must not be paying attention. 4 straight Super Bowls in Buffalo. An appearance in Carolina. A full decade plus of being one of the great teams in football and building one of the greatest offenses ever, two Super Bowls appearances in a highly competitive AFC. A few bounces, or if the Colts were in the NFC, and they would have had more.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                  Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                  For the record, I think Polian handled himself poorly with the media and public; and throwing the perfect season was a terrible thing.

                  But anyone who doesn't recognize him as one of the great team builders the league has ever seen must not be paying attention. 4 straight Super Bowls in Buffalo. An appearance in Carolina. A full decade plus of being one of the great teams in football and building one of the greatest offenses ever, two Super Bowls appearances in a highly competitive AFC. A few bounces, or if the Colts were in the NFC, and they would have had more.

                  The Panthers didn't make the Super Bowl with Polian. They made one NFC championship game with Polian in 1996, which was certainly impressive considering they were a second year franchise. But they didn't go to the Super Bowl until 2003, long after Polian left.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                    That's 99% of the population right there. Nothing new to flip flopping.
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      The Panthers didn't make the Super Bowl with Polian. They made one NFC championship game with Polian in 1996, which was certainly impressive considering they were a second year franchise. But they didn't go to the Super Bowl until 2003, long after Polian left.
                      My bad. Other points still stand however.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                        Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                        For the record, I think Polian handled himself poorly with the media and public; and throwing the perfect season was a terrible thing.

                        But anyone who doesn't recognize him as one of the great team builders the league has ever seen must not be paying attention. 4 straight Super Bowls in Buffalo. An appearance in Carolina. A full decade plus of being one of the great teams in football and building one of the greatest offenses ever, two Super Bowls appearances in a highly competitive AFC. A few bounces, or if the Colts were in the NFC, and they would have had more.
                        Good points and true of course but I think people who criticize him for some poor choices of his with the Colts (especially the late years of his stay) do just that and don't neglect the fact he built a great team.
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                          Polian's a scumbag. He said recently on an ESPN telecast that he was targeting and wanted to pick one of two QBs in the 1st round of his last draft (2011) that ended up being starters in the league. The idea was to get someone who would back up Peyton and presumably replace him down the line. But he said that since he was advised not to go with a QB (because we had Peyton), we went with another pick.

                          Sure, Bill. Sure...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                            Originally posted by Doddage View Post
                            Polian's a scumbag. He said recently on an ESPN telecast that he was targeting and wanted to pick one of two QBs in the 1st round of his last draft (2011) that ended up being starters in the league. The idea was to get someone who would back up Peyton and presumably replace him down the line. But he said that since he was advised not to go with a QB (because we had Peyton), we went with another pick.

                            Sure, Bill. Sure...

                            I heard him say that too on PTI. He said he'd "rather not say" who the quarterbacks were, but it's pretty easy to figure out who he's talking about when you go back and look at that draft. We had the 22nd pick and drafted Castonzo. Dalton was drafted at 35th and Kaepernick at 36. I assume those are the two he is referring to. Cincy and San Fran sure got good value with those guys.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_draft

                            Now was Polian really serious about drafting those two guys, or is he bs'ing in hindsight to make himself look better? It's hard to say. We know that Polian has distorted the truth with stuff like this in the past to make himself look better. When Marvin Harrison was inducted into the Colts Ring of Honor two seasons ago, Polian said this:

                            Polian, who was directing the Carolina Panthers when Harrison was available in the 1996 draft, loved what he saw in the Syracuse product. He knew then what he saw in a pre-draft workout.

                            “I was praying that we would get a shot at him, but, of course, we did not,” said Polian. “He had the single best workout I had ever seen by a receiver – absolutely incredible, speed, flexibility, moves, explosion, dexterity, hands, just off the charts. We were blown away by it. I recall going back to the airport and Dom Anile, who was our personnel director here for many years, said to me, ‘Man, we are probably not going to see the likes of that for another five or 10 years.’ Well, he was wrong by five years. I haven’t seen the likes of him for 15 years. He’s a special, special guy.”


                            http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/...edium=facebook

                            A quick look at the 1996 draft tells us that Polian was full of crap with that statement. Polian's Carolina Panthers drafted 8th and selected the immortal Tim Biakabutuka. The Colts didn't get Harrison until the 19th pick. Polian could have drafted Harrison if he wanted to, but somehow he twisted it in his mind that he knew Harrison was going to be great from the beginning and wanted to draft him, even though that obviously wasn't the case.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_NFL_draft
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-02-2013, 08:24 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: So Bill Polian can't believe a team would sit starters

                              I agree that it is a little fishy, but when I saw that quote I was reminded about this report before the 2011 draft where the Colts had a private workout with Dalton. It generated some discussion at the time about if the Colts were really ready to draft Manning's successor when he likely was going to play another 3-5 years.

                              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...k-andy-dalton/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X