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

    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

    Current players like Mathis and Wayne yes the guys who are rookies? Not so much but when Irsay talks about giving a tribute to Manning and then pretty much ripping him before said tribute for all our failures. And then Suzy Kolber mentioning people going up to them talking about the upcoming Broncos game I can understand them paying more attention to that game than the one in front of them.

    And it bit them even though they had a real shot of winning that game because the Chargers aren't that great except against us.

    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
      Manning was a Colts icon. His Colts' career was a long one. The Colts won a SB and were recognized as contenders for a long time. It was assumed Manning was a Colt for life. Manning was a popular TV pitchman. Manning's Colts not only played many big natl reg season games but also several hyped playoff games. Manning was a natl face of the NFL. Current players surely were fans of the NFL during their school days and would've been following the NFL and the Colts and would've likely seen Manning and the Colts as one and the same. The may not have played with him but his ghost has to haunt the halls of LOS (and Indpls... and Indiana... for that matter).

      I don't think they'll have or have had a problem seeing this game as something bigger than your average Sunday game. Then add in the natl spotlight of SNF and all of the hype leading up to it.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

        So Pep seems to think that a running game and up tempo offense are mutually exclusive and that you can't have both? If that doesn't change we are doomed because NFL defenses are going to adjust to us.


        Comment


        • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          So Pep seems to think that a running game and up tempo offense are mutually exclusive and that you can't have both? If that doesn't change we are doomed because NFL defenses are going to adjust to us.


          Our offense is just.....bland. No other way to describe it. It's predictable, boring, and certainly does not maximize the talents of our roster. I despise the constant changing of formations and substitutions. Hopefully someday soon Luck gets enough clout to take more control of the offense.

          Comment


          • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Our offense is just.....bland. No other way to describe it. It's predictable, boring, and certainly does not maximize the talents of our roster. I despise the constant changing of formations and substitutions. Hopefully someday soon Luck gets enough clout to take more control of the offense.
            I think as Luck gets better we will move more toward an offense geared specifically for his talents. Until then, we're running a low-turnover offense that will normally give us at least a chance to be in the game I think they are trying to build up a team that can be successful even when Luck has a bad game. If and when Luck becomes a hyper-efficient qb, we can move to an offense that gives him more control. When Manning had an off game, we were probably not going to win unless our defense turned them over numerous times. I am happy with our philosophy, but I do wish they would give Luck a little more freedom in the middle of games when he starts to get in a rhythm.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Our offense is just.....bland. No other way to describe it. It's predictable, boring, and certainly does not maximize the talents of our roster. I despise the constant changing of formations and substitutions. Hopefully someday soon Luck gets enough clout to take more control of the offense.
              We can run the ball, but we need to be no huddle, keep the defense form subbing, get them tired. You can't just be a run based offense and take 35 seconds between each play, the D will catch their breath.


              Comment


              • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                As Luck gets better? To me that's a dumb thing to "wait for", he's already really good. Prisco was being really hard on it last night, said the Colts have taken a high powered sports car and turned it into a granny mobile.


                Comment


                • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                  I don't want to blame this all on Pep, our defense bent too much, our receivers dropped a ton of passes, but to me the flow for the offense just hasn't really been there.

                  Trent runs better when we pick up the pace, the receivers find more space, Luck's ability to improvise becomes even more of a weapon, there's just no downside to it. It was really frustrating to watch last night.

                  If we don't pick up the pace against Peyton, he's going to murder us. The way the Broncos are playing ball control doesn't help much, Peyton scores as much as he wants right now, we have to come out trying to match him IMO. If we don't he's going to house our asses.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Our offense is just.....bland. No other way to describe it. It's predictable, boring, and certainly does not maximize the talents of our roster. I despise the constant changing of formations and substitutions. Hopefully someday soon Luck gets enough clout to take more control of the offense.
                    I think part of it's blandness stems from the fact that he is a Harbaugh disciple. "Oh, it's 3rd-and-2? We are going to bring in our beefiest dudes in the game and spread no wide receivers, so you know ******* well what we are going to do. Try and stop us." I agree though--the offensive play calling has been mighty vanilla all season.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      I don't want to blame this all on Pep, our defense bent too much,
                      19pts is bending too much? I get the time of possession difference, but if the Colts offense can string together 3-4 more plays on 2 drives, that 17min differentiatial gets cut down to just a few minutes. The longest drive the offense put together was 5mins. They had 7 drives under two minutes, and one drive that was 3:33. Yuckity yuck.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                        You saw what happened when we were in hurry up before the end of the half and towards end of the game. We moved the ball right down the field. All the analysts are starting to see it too. How long will it take the coaching staff to see it? A lot of the reasons I wanted Jim Caldwell gone have come back again.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                          I thought the D could have gotten off a little sooner, but who knows how much a diff it would have made in the end. I thought 54 replacing Freeman really hurt us. That guy is not good.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            19pts is bending too much? I get the time of possession difference, but if the Colts offense can string together 3-4 more plays on 2 drives, that 17min differentiatial gets cut down to just a few minutes. The longest drive the offense put together was 5mins. They had 7 drives under two minutes, and one drive that was 3:33. Yuckity yuck.

                            Exactly. It's hard to win the time of possession when you're putting together such pitifully short drives.

                            Our defense allowed too many long drives and had some costly penalties, but they did keep them out of the end zone aside from that one touchdown. Our offense had multiple chances to do something. I'm not a fan of a "bend, but don't break" philosophy, but our defense gave our offense multiple opportunities on the road against a red hot quarterback in Rivers. The defense was "acceptable" last night. We lost that game because of poor offense and gutless head coaching decisions.

                            I don't want to come across as too "knee jerk" here, but I'm starting to wish that we would have hired an offensive coordinator with a thicker NFL resume'. Norv Turner has done a pretty decent job in Cleveland, and has had to deal with losing his starting QB to injury and RB to a trade. I'm pretty sure he could have ran an offense that would have scored more than 9 points last night. Wish we could have made a run at him or Whisenhunt after Arians left.

                            I think that Pep's experience with Luck at Stanford got overrated. Familiarity is nice and all, but that doesn't mean that I would have wanted the Colts to hire Phillip Fulmer as their HC during the Manning era. And as Arians showed last year, it doesn't take too much time to get familiar with Luck.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-15-2013, 02:10 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              I thought the D could have gotten off a little sooner, but who knows how much a diff it would have made in the end. I thought 54 replacing Freeman really hurt us. That guy is not good.
                              Harvey. The Colts would have been better off going with this Harvey.

                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                                There's a reason the Offensive Coordinator at Stanford will be forever known as the Andrew Luck Director of Offense....and it's not Pep Hamilton


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X