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

2013 non-Colts thread

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

  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
    Argh.....The Saints' playcalling at the end was annoying. Not only you basically had 6 downs to earn a first down and you didn't but you have your QB, who happens to be one of the best passers in the game, running a bootleg on 3rd down. Really?

    If you wanna run the ball to kill more time then use your RB and hope for some some good blocking.
    Maybe this is my ignorance of not being an offensive coordinator in the NFL, but to me you put the ball in the hands of your best player when it is time win the game. You are not giving the ball to OJ to win a game against the Heat. You are giving the ball to PG. So why take the ball out of Brees's hands? I get they want to run the ball and kill some time, but what they did was basically neuter their offense and take the ball out of their best players hand.

    If I am going to watch a loss by my team I rather go out with Luck throwing an interception than running the ball with Donald Brown to kill some time and hope Brady does not do what Brady does best. It is like these coaches do not even watch the games. All you need is a first down and the game is over.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

      http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/98...ack-matt-flynn

      Bills sign QB Matt Flynn

      The Buffalo Bills signed quarterback Matt Flynn on Monday.

      The Bills plan to sign Matt Flynn, who struggled in his brief time with the Raiders this season before he was released.
      Flynn was in Buffalo on Sunday, before quarterback Thad Lewis suffered a right foot injury in an overtime loss to the Cincinnati Bengals. Lewis was starting in place of rookie EJ Manuel, who is expected to miss several weeks with a knee injury.

      Lewis said Sunday his injury is "just a sprain." He was limping in the locker room after undergoing postgame X-rays.

      "They said the X-rays looked good," Lewis said. "I should be fine. That's a great sign."

      Prior to the game, Bills coach Doug Marrone said he would assess the quarterback situation following Lewis' start Sunday, just the second of his career.

      The Oakland Raiders released Flynn last week after he was demoted to third on their depth chart. In his one start this season, a Sept. 29 loss to the Washington Redskins, Flynn completed 21-of-32 passes for 227 yards and a touchdown, but threw an interception and was sacked seven times

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

        Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
        Maybe this is my ignorance of not being an offensive coordinator in the NFL, but to me you put the ball in the hands of your best player when it is time win the game. You are not giving the ball to OJ to win a game against the Heat. You are giving the ball to PG. So why take the ball out of Brees's hands? I get they want to run the ball and kill some time, but what they did was basically neuter their offense and take the ball out of their best players hand.

        If I am going to watch a loss by my team I rather go out with Luck throwing an interception than running the ball with Donald Brown to kill some time and hope Brady does not do what Brady does best. It is like these coaches do not even watch the games. All you need is a first down and the game is over.
        Honestly, the Saints had already "won" the game if they control the clock. They threw it for some reason on their 2nd to last possession, which saved a timeout for the Patriots. If they run it there and gain nothing, they win the game because the Pats offense doesn't have enough time to score. They just needed to play the clock to win that game. They got cute with the bootleg and the pass. Picking up a 1st would have been nice but unnecessary after the interception.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

          The Saints started celebrating a little early, it seems, with players rubbing their "game ball"

          http://i.imgur.com/AkjCXaD.gif

          They threw it for some reason on their 2nd to last possession, which saved a timeout for the Patriots. If they run it there and gain nothing, they win the game because the Pats offense doesn't have enough time to score. They just needed to play the clock to win that game. They got cute with the bootleg and the pass. Picking up a 1st would have been nice but unnecessary after the interception.
          I have heard more criticism of the Saints not throwing the ball on the Brees attempted bootleg in their last possession than I have heard criticism of the Saints throwing the ball on the previous possession. Both of the choices can't really be criticized. they tried each option once, and neither one worked!
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

            Brandon Weeden turned 30 today. Man, the last Browns executive regime was awful.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ribbs-finally/

              Jets set to sign Josh Cribbs, finally


              After looking him over several times, the Jets have decided to go ahead and make a move to boost their return game.

              A league source confirms to PFT the Jets are signing Joshua Cribbs.

              Cribbs made the rounds this summer, trying to prove to teams he was well enough to play. If he is, the All-Decade return man could add an element the Jets have lacked.

              With Clyde Gates banged up (shoulder), there could be an immediate opening for a kick returner. Although Gates has gotten better the last two weeks, he’s averaging 24.9 yards per return for the season.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl...1241--nfl.html

                Vikings announce quarterback Josh Freeman will start against New York Giants on Monday

                The Minnesota Vikings are ready to see what quarterback Josh Freeman can bring to the table.
                The Vikings announced that the newly acquired quarterback would start against the New York Giants on Monday.


                Vikings coach Leslie Frazier’s willingness to start Freeman less than two weeks since the free agent signed with his squad indicates he has seen enough of quarterbacks Christian Ponder and Matt Cassel, who struggled during a blowout loss against the Carolina Panthers this past week. Cassel completed 32-of-44 passes for 241 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions during that 35-10 defeat.
                Freeman, who was a first-round pick (17th overall) of Tampa Bay in 2009 and is just 25 years old, has thrown for 13,534 yards, 80 touchdowns and 66 interceptions in his career. He was recently released by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and signed a one-year deal with Minnesota.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                  I actually think starting Freeman is the right move. I mean, at this point, why not?

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                    http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/...se-jay-ratliff

                    Cowboys release Jay Ratliff

                    AP Photo/Gus Ruelas
                    The Cowboys released defensive tackle Jay Ratliff, who had been eligible to come off the PUP list.
                    IRVING, Texas -- The Dallas Cowboys have cut defensive tackle Jay Ratliff.

                    Ratliff was eligible to come off the physically unable to perform (PUP) list this week but the team decided to part ways with the four-time Pro Bowler instead.

                    The Cowboys put Ratliff on the PUP list at the start of training camp after he suffered a strained hamstring in the conditioning run. He also still was recovering from a sports hernia surgery last December.

                    Coach Jason Garrett mostly has deflected questions about Ratliff, saying the organization had to have discussions regarding Ratliff before they would activate him so he could practice.

                    The Cowboys restructured Ratliff's contract in the spring to create salary-cap space and hoped he would return to form in the defensive move to the 4-3 scheme but he was unable to get healthy enough to play.

                    Ratliff made the Pro Bowl from 2008-11 as a 3-4 nose tackle. He had 25 sacks in 104 games.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                      Pats lost Jerod Mayo to season ending injury. Quite an important loss. Also

                      ESPN Stats & Info ‏@ESPNStatsInfo 4h
                      Jerod Mayo ranks 2nd in the NFL in tackles since his rookie season in 2008. He has 425 more than the next-most by a Patriots player.
                      Never forget

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                        I don't think anybody would dispute that Wilfork and Mayo are their two best defensive players. Most likely Talib is #3, and he could be out awhile too. The second best D-tackle after Wilfork was Tommy Kelly, and he is likely out a few weeks as well. And on offense? wow...

                        The outlook for maintaining their current level of defensive production is dim. Right now they at 14th in yards per game (347.7) and 4th in points per game (16.2): http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/te...sition/defense
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                          Tough losses. Hoodie will still get the max out of the guys who play, but there's no doubt that losing these guys will sting.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                            http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/98...-sideline-runs

                            RG3 admits that he will try to draw late hit penalties against the defense when he runs out of bounds. Really a loser move on his part, admitting this. It's the NFL equivalent of flopping. And he obviously tried to do it a couple times in Dallas even if he won't admit it.

                            I'm glad we have Luck.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                              If you want a good laugh, read some of these:

                              http://profootballmock.com/category/...s-on-facebook/

                              They get rude, but damn - they're funny.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                                Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                                http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/98...-sideline-runs

                                RG3 admits that he will try to draw late hit penalties against the defense when he runs out of bounds. Really a loser move on his part, admitting this. It's the NFL equivalent of flopping. And he obviously tried to do it a couple times in Dallas even if he won't admit it.

                                I'm glad we have Luck.
                                To me, that's not even the issue. For the past year and a half he's been told that he needs to learn how to protect himself - sliding, getting out-of-bounds, but apparently he's still clueless. The point of sliding or running out of bounds is to live to see another play, another series, another game. His stutter-stepping trying to draw a late hit is idiotic. The upside is 15 yards and a first down. The downside is blowing out another knee, separating a shoulder, concussion, etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X