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

Week 6: @ Chargers

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

  • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

    worth noting Pat McAfee's been pretty crappy this year, and he's a FA after the year. Hopefully he's not getting distracted with his 50 media engagements he does every week.

    Comment


    • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

      Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
      Luck apparently is human after all.

      Team loss. Pep's play calling might suck but if Heward-Bay and Coby Fleener knew how to catch footballs we might be able to pull this out.

      Again, team loss, the only person who didn't suck tonight was Adam. Not going for it on 4th and 2 was soft football at its best.

      Now I can't watch ESPN for a week.

      (Which probably isn't a bad thing)

      Also, worst 4-2, division leading team ever....
      I hope you don't think ESPN cares about the colts or bolts enough to talk about this game a lot.

      Also you could be 0-5 so this frustration over this game is entertaining to me.

      Comment


      • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

        Really crappy defense for only giving up 19 points. Offense? Nuf said. Played like we've been reading our recent press clippings or something. Bolts had sense of urgency. We had nothin.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Really crappy defense for only giving up 19 points. Offense? Nuf said. Played like we've been reading our recent press clippings or something. Bolts had sense of urgency. We had nothin.
          Yeah, it felt like they were already focusing on the Broncos and just overlooked the Chargers.

          I know that pass was a little off to DHB, but for the love of god just make a play DHB. It hit your right hand and if you just lay out a bit you make a huge play. That was the DHB that Raider fans all know and hate. I know the guy is a good blocker and that is probably the reason we are keeping him where we are, but good lord the guy is useless in any other aspect of the game.

          Maybe it is being spoiled for years by Peyton, but I just hate our slow tempo offense. All of these formations and trading in and out of personnel just slows Luck down. I just do not think this type of offense maximizes his abilities. I think it would even help Trent if we move things faster get the defenses to stay on the field and then pound them with the pass and Trent. We all know when we bring in our "power" formation we are going to run. At times this offense is just to predictable and everyone knows when we are going to run the ball.

          Losing was not the way I wanted to go into the Broncos game.

          Comment


          • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

            We couldn't do anything on offense and couldn't hold them defensively. Just a poor game overall
            Smothered Chicken!

            Comment


            • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

              I'm going to the doctor today to get my 'Coby Fleener Flu Shot'.

              I've been told I'll never catch anything.

              Comment


              • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                Ahhh...don't know why I stayed up until 7 A.M. for this crap. I guess because of Luck just in case he achieved another comeback.

                100% deserved win by SD. They were smart, ran the ball well, killed a a lot of time off the clock and they scored a TD something we didn't do.

                Was screaming to the TV watching that unacceptable stupidity exhibited by Toler and that fat LB #54 who couldn't turn. He sucks even for a back up. Toler, gave up what 2 first downs by penalties when San Diego were about to punt after not completing the 3rd down? I know Freeman was injured but watching that LB and Toler giving up catches to SD's WR and TE was frustrating.

                Add to that the DHB's and Fleener's inability to catch the ball and voila.
                Also did you know that the KO returner, Reed, is a home run hitter? You saw it right? I wish sometimes Pagano did the psychological build up in private.

                At the end of the day, our pass rush wasn't there at all, we didn't make the catches when needed, we didn't have much of the ball and we didn't convert 3rd downs. The loss came as totally natural.
                Never forget

                Comment


                • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                  Oh forgot to add. What was the exact playcalling in the first quarter on that 3rd down and 1? You know the one Luck starts immediately running to his left thus making almost impossible to throw the ball with accuracy?

                  Also, I just saw cdash's post and thanked it. That 4th down and 2 in the end with 3 minutes left and some seconds where we decided to punt, was a ****** weak *** playcalling. Why not take the chance? What else have you got to lose? The game is winding down and San Diego made it 2 possession game afterwards.
                  Never forget

                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    IRegardless of what they say they did overlook the Chargers because of next week.

                    At the end of the day they're still a young team so I expect them to make mistakes.
                    So do you really think most of the Colts current players are all geeked up to play against Manning? Why would they be? I mean how many actual current Colts players played with Manning? 3, 5? I really don't know, but my guess is most of the Colts players don't see playing against the Broncos as that big of a deal, except they are undefeated.

                    I seriously doubt the Colts were over-looking the Chargers. or if they were it wasn't because of next week's game

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                      Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                      We had 35 drop backs and 13 runs how is that conservative.

                      It's not just a matter of drop backs vs. runs. It's the type of plays and formations that we're running. The formations and constant substitutions do not maximize Luck's abilities, and they chop up the flow of the offense. We need a fast offense with constant 3WR formations. And we need to throw down field more. Sure, Bey and Fleener dropped long balls, but I feel that the only reason we flew a long ball to Fleener in that situation was because we were running a hurry up at the end of the half. On a "normal" drive, it's likely that we wouldn't have thrown the ball like that. This offense just has an ugly flow to it right now. We almost lost that Oakland game because of it.

                      I'm a huge fan of Pagano from a philosophy and motivational standpoint. The culture he has created is no doubt a major reason why we are 4-2 this season. But his in-game decisions leave a lot to be desired at times. At the end of that SF game, we scored a touchdown to go up 12. Instead of going for 2 to give us a 14 point lead, we took the PAT to go up 13. At the end of the game, there was no difference between a 12 and 13 point lead. In that situation, we should have tried to go for 2 to give us the 14 point lead just in case SF scored quickly and then recovered an onside kick. It obviously didn't hurt us, but that's just a poor understanding of situational football. Then last week against Seattle, we did not let Luck throw on a 3rd and 9 that would have iced the game since Seattle had no timeouts. Instead, we ran the ball like two yards to move it from a 51 yard FG to a 49 yard one. We put all of our hopes in a long Vinny FG to go up 6. He made it, but Seattle still had plenty of time to score a touchdown. And if he would have missed it, we would have only been up 3 and Seattle would have had solid field position. We should have let our red hot QB make a throw to win that game, and THEN kick the FG if he didn't convert the third down. Decisions like that will bite us in the future.

                      And of course, last night there were two awful decisions that stand out. With about 4 minutes left in the third quarter and down 13-6, we had put together a nice drive and were on the SD 40. Instead of letting Luck go for it on a 4th and 3 and capitalizing on momentum to possibly tie the game, we punt it back to SD and give them the ball back after not being able to do jack to stop them. That's just losing football there. And of course the decision to punt on that 4th and 2 at the end of the game was absolutely horrific and was essentially waiving the white flag. You don't punt the ball there to give them the ball when they are so close to FG range. Of course they were going to make a FG after that. Converting a 4th and 2 is your last chance to make a stand. We would have at least had a chance if we tried. But we had zero chance when we punted. SD's head coach should send Pagano a Thank You note for wrapping the game up for him.

                      Like I said, Pagano's philosophy is a huge reason we have been so successful this season. But some of his in-game decisions are extremely irritating.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-15-2013, 12:01 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        So do you really think most of the Colts current players are all geeked up to play against Manning? Why would they be? I mean how many actual current Colts players played with Manning? 3, 5? I really don't know, but my guess is most of the Colts players don't see playing against the Broncos as that big of a deal, except they are undefeated.

                        I seriously doubt the Colts were over-looking the Chargers. or if they were it wasn't because of next week's game
                        I agree with this. The Chargers are a solid team, it was a tough road game, and we didn't make plays. Simple as that. The Manning excuse overlooks what actually happened on the field last night.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                          Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                          Oh forgot to add. What was the exact playcalling in the first quarter on that 3rd down and 1? You know the one Luck starts immediately running to his left thus making almost impossible to throw the ball with accuracy?

                          Also, I just saw cdash's post and thanked it. That 4th down and 2 in the end with 3 minutes left and some seconds where we decided to punt, was a ****** weak *** playcalling. Why not take the chance? What else have you got to lose? The game is winding down and San Diego made it 2 possession game afterwards.
                          It's a rollout off play action that is designed to free up the fullback for an easy completion. The problem with that play is that the LB read the play and did not fall for the play action.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                            Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                            The problem with that play is that the LB read the play and did not fall for the play action.
                            Needed to hit right bumper before the play call and not run the play to the short side of the field. There was no option to make a play after the shut down the initial read, and there wasn't enough room to even look at picking it up running.

                            They've got to start using more play action. I like the idea of the power running game, but when you show run you can't seriously actually run the ball 99% of the time. The whole point of the play action is to set up passing, so freaking do it.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                              As more of a layman, it just seemed like 'everything' was going wrong last night, and that's what it took to lose a semi-close game. It was awful to sit through, but the miserable experience of it aside, it took a lot of wrongs to lose a game that wasn't a blowout and still could have gone the other way most of the game.

                              In other words, it was really bad, and yet it told me the team is still pretty damn good. Assuming they don't make any bad habits based on last night.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                                I mean what SD did to us is what we need to do to Denver. Kill time and control the tempo. I also believe Pep needs to let Andrew have more freedom and try more 5 wide sets.
                                Smothered Chicken!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X