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 12: @ Cardinals

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

  • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    I think Pep is in some serious hot water. The issue comes from higher than TRich and Luck and Reggie Wayne. We have the pieces. They aren't being used correctly. These same guys all had better years last year... yes, even TRich. This offense has nose-dived. Across the board. Something has to be done. Who here doesn't believe that Bruce Arians couldn't walk in here tomorrow and fix our issues? I believe he could. He did much more with much less.
    I disagree with the bolded. Arians had way more to work with last year than Pep does right now. Arians had a HOF WR who had one of the best seasons of his entire career. He had Dwayne Allen and Donnie Avery (who is far better than DHB). He had a decent running game with Vick Ballard and an O-Line that played better than this year. Pep has none of that, though I guess 2013 Fleener and 2012 Allen basically cross each other out.

    This offense basically only has two legitimate weapons right now in Hilton and Fleener. Don't get me wrong, I think that Arians would do a superior job with this bunch compared to Pep. Arians knew how to utilize T.Y. last year and there's no doubt that he would figure ways out to get his best option the ball right now. Pep shows no creativity or adaptive skills in that department. But I will defend Pep in the sense that the tools at his disposal are far worse than what Arians had. The only thing Pep has over Arians is that he has a QB with an extra year of experience.

    We might very well have the worst offensive weapons in the NFL right now. You certainly couldn't say that about last year's bunch. We had multiple weapons at our disposal.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-27-2013, 09:28 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

      No. We have Andrew Luck, TRich, Hilton, Fleener, all one year older. Those guys were all rooks last year.
      Andrew Luck alone is one of the best offensive weapons in the league. If anything I'll give you a draw. Either way our offense last year was leap years ahead of this offense. My point still stands; Arians > Pep.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-27-2013, 09:43 AM.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        No. We have Andrew Luck, TRich, Hilton, Fleener, all one year older. Those guys were all rooks last year.
        Andrew Luck alone is one of the best offensive weapons in the league.

        And we're minus a security blanket HOF WR who had one of the best seasons of his career, Donnie Avery (better than DHB), Allen (probably cancels Fleener out or close to it), and a running game that was better than this year's.

        Last year's offensive weapons: HOF'er Wayne, Hilton, Avery, Allen, solid running game with Vick Ballard/better O-Line

        Current offensive weapons: Hilton, Fleener, DHB (he barely counts), and a poor running game.

        I'd much rather have a rookie Luck who can throw to one of the greatest receivers of all time than I would a second year Luck who has a miserable group of offensive weapons. Reggie Wayne is infinitely more important to this offense than one year's worth of growth from Luck considering that Luck was already very good last year. Tom Brady is one of the greatest QB's in the history of the game, but he was off at the beginning of this season when he was throwing to a bunch of guys who he had never even heard of. It doesn't matter how much Luck grows if his weapons are complete crap like they are right now. It's very hard to ask a second year quarterback to compensate for this.

        I'm a huge critic of Pep, but what he has to work with right now is complete crap compared to what we had 12 months ago. And I'm not arguing against Arians being better than Pep because clearly is a superior offensive mind. He would find better ways to get T.Y. the ball and would roll Luck out more. But that doesn't change the fact that he had more at his disposal than Pep does now. Our offensive weapons suck right now.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-27-2013, 09:51 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

          While I agree that Arians would have certainly done a better job than Pep (don't know what the extend would be tbf), I'm also sure we would be here, once again, ruining his ultra offensive mentality with the bombs down the field, Luck's picks and getting hit (the same thing happens under pep of course) way too often.
          Never forget

          Comment


          • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

            I think IF either TRich OR the OL were better it would help the other somewhat. But as it is, neither is good enough to have a positive impact on the other so it's all negatives all the way around.

            Added in is losing Reggie Wayne on top of all the other losses this season.

            The offense's lack of ability to get anything going is impacting the defense negatively. You cannot go the entire first half without converting a 3rd down.

            David "Take a Knee!!!" Reed's poor decisions in the end zone have not helped and I don't know why it took so long to address that.

            DHB cannot catch deep balls even though he has the speed. So we should utilize him more with short, safe, passes and try and exploit his speed for YAC. He's simply not a deep threat and the opposing team doesn't have to respect him even as a possibility. He's not exactly Mr. Hands on the short passes either, but at least he has some ability to catch those. Maybe it would even improve if we focused on that part of his game. Let TY be the speedster.

            Try and let the passing game open up the running game. It's clearly not working the other way around and we end up HAVING to abandon the running game once the hole is deep enough.
            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 12: @ Cardinals

              In this day and age I don't know a single back who rocks out with a terrible line.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                In this day and age I don't know a single back who is worth a first round pick.

                Comment


                • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  In this day and age I don't know a single back who rocks out with a terrible line.
                  I asked someone to come up with an example of a good RB behind a weak OL about 4-5 weeks ago, and no one has taken up the task of providing one. I brought up Ray Rice, as proof of how fast a good RB can fall into horrible statistics hole when his line gets changed. The guy still is averaging 2.9 YPC, while being insistant he is healthy. Pretty big downfall going from 4.4ypc to 2.9ypc in a year, without any changes other than who's blocking for him.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    In this day and age I don't know a single back who is worth a first round pick.
                    The only position that isn't worthy of a 1st round pick is kicker. Other than that, that's the most asinine stance ever to take on a first round pick. I spose you wouldn't like a TE in the first, either? I wouldn't mind me some Jimmy Graham, or Gronk. I'd absolutely pay a 1st rounder for a guy like that.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I asked someone to come up with an example of a good RB behind a weak OL about 4-5 weeks ago, and no one has taken up the task of providing one. I brought up Ray Rice, as proof of how fast a good RB can fall into horrible statistics hole when his line gets changed. The guy still is averaging 2.9 YPC, while being insistant he is healthy. Pretty big downfall going from 4.4ypc to 2.9ypc in a year, without any changes other than who's blocking for him.
                      Yea, he was also a fairly insignificant part of a SB champion, too. Running backs are so dime-a-dozen. No impact at all. I mean, if a RB can't get any yards behind a terrible line, then what good are they? Not worth a first-rounder, that's for sure.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                        Aren't we just beating a dead horse here? They both suck.

                        I know that Wayne was a big loss. But I'm going to argue that losing Allen was just as big a loss for the offense. His blocking was the best among our receiving options and he had terrific hands and got open in the field. I think he'd have been as important a security blanket as Wayne was. I think if we at least had him we could survive what's going on.

                        That's why I feel Pep has less to work with this year than Arians did last year. Yeah, everyone's a year older. Doesn't matter when Luck still doesn't have time to throw the ball (he's getting hit more than he was last year) and our best WRs are either in KC (Avery...though he isn't great) or are on IR. I mean, we were throwing to David Reed for crying out loud.

                        And Pep should be punched in the face for taking TY out of the game.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I asked someone to come up with an example of a good RB behind a weak OL about 4-5 weeks ago, and no one has taken up the task of providing one. I brought up Ray Rice, as proof of how fast a good RB can fall into horrible statistics hole when his line gets changed. The guy still is averaging 2.9 YPC, while being insistant he is healthy. Pretty big downfall going from 4.4ypc to 2.9ypc in a year, without any changes other than who's blocking for him.
                          In the past, Matt Forte was such an example.

                          This year, Lamar Miller has shown flashes. Rashad Jennings since taking over. Marshawn Lynch has been running behind a bad offensive line most of the season due to injuries. Andre Brown has been productive.

                          I think it's very hard for a RB to have a great season behind a bad offensive line, but above average RB's should be able to have isolated games where they produce. Even Rice, who I don't believe is healthy and as you mention has been historically awful, has had one game where he was really good. Richardson's best game has been 20 for 60 and a TD. He's had 1 game with the Colts where he averaged more than 3.1 per carry.

                          And at least in Rice's case his backup who was really good last year has fallen right with him. In Richardson's case, the RB's before him produced and the RB backing him up is also producing when he gets touches.

                          Don't get me wrong-if you had to ask which one would I want to improve in the offseason, it would be the line first. They've been worse than Richardson, and they're also more important than a RB. I'm guessing probably most of the Richardson "bashers" would say the same thing. The reason Richardson has gotten most of the criticism is because there was hope for him because of the price paid for him and his draft status, while everybody has given up on the line already.

                          Richardson's season last year was what I would hope a good RB behind a bad offensive line would do. It wasn't good whatsoever, but there was some legitimate production in there. This year has been so much worse than that. I don't think you can judge him to be a terrible RB because of his tough situation, but great seems pretty out of the question. I would still put him well down the list of needs though. This teams first two offensive needs are an interior lineman and a possession receiver.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                            Frank Gore also doesn't run behind the best offensive line nor McCoy or Lacy. The last one has been a revelation for me as he is so tough and good in yards after contact. Hell I have even seen Peterson being jammed a lot this season but didn't stop him cause he is THE man.
                            Never forget

                            Comment


                            • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                              The Eagles O-Line is pretty damn good. Jason Peters alone is one of the best run blockers in the league. Last year with all the injuries to the line McCoy suffered, as well with his own injury.

                              But McCoy is also just a beast. I remember watching him in high school, just destroying our defense. I'm sure a lot of my buddies on the football team feel a lot better about themselves seeing him do the same to NFL defenses.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 12: @ Cardinals

                                Seattle's offensive line is dealing with some injuries, but they also got some guys back healthy before others went down.
                                GB has multiple Pro Bowlers.
                                Oakland's line has produced for their RBs, going back to McFadden.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X