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 13: vs Titans

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

  • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

    The only bright side is that instead of losing the 14th pick for a trade that was an overreaction to injuries, we will lose the 21st. Hooray! I doubt the Browns will pick anyone good with it, and with how Grigson has used the 2013 and 2014 first rounder, I wonder if he would have done anything better with it.

    Comment


    • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

      Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
      Let's just hope that this win and likely division title don't obscure the major changes needed on offense this offseason. The line needs to be replaced and the offensive philosophy needs to be adjusted to be more in line with what successful teams are doing.
      The Colts will have around 40 million in cap space next year...
      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

      Comment


      • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

        Luck is just not playing well because he is taking much too long to find a receiver. It just appears that these guys are playing as if they don't know each other. Fleener seems most attuned to Luck.
        i did not see that the OL was too terrible today . TR is really just terrible as he seems to try to run into rather than avoid a crowd. The guy doesn't know the term cut.

        Comment


        • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

          I thought TRich had better runs than Brown until the final drive.
          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 13: vs Titans

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            I thought TRich had better runs than Brown until the final drive.
            At one point in the 4th, Brown was like 10 for 27 yards and TRich had a 4+ average on limited carries.
            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

            Comment


            • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              Luck is just not playing well because he is taking much too long to find a receiver. It just appears that these guys are playing as if they don't know each other. Fleener seems most attuned to Luck.
              i did not see that the OL was too terrible today . TR is really just terrible as he seems to try to run into rather than avoid a crowd. The guy doesn't know the term cut.

              When one of your receivers is DHB it HAS to put a hitch in your giddyup as a QB. Let's assume DHB is the first option on a route. Wellll.... no matter what you see how can you not hesitate for a beat wondering if you should throw it to him in about any given situation? Or should you take a look at your 2nd and 3rd options first... just in case? Or what if you're going thru your options and everyone is covered fairly well... and then you come to DHB. Do you immediately let it fly or do you pause to see if anyone else got some separation before you go back to DHB? And even when he's open and you've decided you will throw to him... do you throw instinctively or do you pause and think about touch you should put on the ball specifically for DHB?

              I just can't imagine how having DHB on the field cannot cause Luck to hesitate. And with the Colts' line there's just not time for that.

              Seriously, I think you just have to get him off the field and just move on. I'd take a receiver that MIGHT get open versus DHB who can get open... but can't catch the ball. With the loss of Reggie (and Ballard, Allen, Bradshaw...), the OL problems, and play calling it has become a real serious issue IMHO.

              Luck doesn't have time to hesitate wondering about DHB or even waste time looking his direction. That pass today was inexcusable. Especially when it's not the outlier.
              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 13: vs Titans

                I had seats in back of the goal post today and you could just see TRich just run into coverage whereas Brown made his cuts. TRich is getting minimal opportunities now and didn't do anything to change that. One ball hit him in in his chest and he dropped it and there wasn't anyone close by.

                Luck doesn't seem to know where his receivers will be. Takes too much time looking around but the problem is bigger than DHB. Brazil is largely untested and TY is so small that a ball lofted can easily be picked off.
                Last edited by speakout4; 12-01-2013, 07:41 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

                  Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                  Useless information of the day: From now on I will always have my Bob Sanders jersey on while watching Colts games. We are so bad on offense that the only hope of winning games will come from defense.

                  Same thing did today as well cause I knew what was coming.


                  I never thought I'd see the day when that would be the case with the Colts

                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

                    Colts best weapon currently = VINATIERI

                    Kudos to the D, but an average QB lights us up. Thankfully we were playing who we were.

                    Luck has to be prepared to break the pocket and run more often and/or throw the ball away when he's holding it for so long. It's unclear to me whether it's on the receivers or his indecisiveness. Maybe some of both. Of course our half-*** O-line is in there to. Add it all up and you have bush league offense at its finest.

                    This is not a playoff team. We'll be fortunate to win one more this regular season.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

                      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                      This is not a playoff team. We'll be fortunate to win one more this regular season.


                      We have Houston and Jacksonville left...just saying.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

                        So, we won despite being terrible on offense.

                        I don't really know what to take from this going forward. It's pretty inevitable that we'll make the playoffs. You stand back and look high-level and realize that we've played terribly for a month, and we're still 8-4. We've suffered a ton of injuries, and we're still 8-4.

                        It's possible taht we're just having a major mid-season swoon, and maybe we'll get it together down the stretch and enter the playoffs hot. I mean.... 2006, we had an epicly bad defense, and when we hit the playoffs, they did a complete 180 and became dominant. It's possible that with the loss of some offensive cogs, they're just getting things worked out.

                        Our o line is absolutely terrible. It was on full display today. It's bad in all phases of the game. I know everyone got excited about DBrown in the fourth (let's not forget Luck actually out "ran" DBrown on that drive), but bottom line is our run game experienced zero improvement today. Luck accounted for almost half of our "rushing" yards today, and all of them on busted plays. We really produced about 60 yards of offense out of running plays today.

                        When Luck stepped back to throw, dudes all over him. Dudes in the backfield, chasing him, batting balls down. Luck looks rattled, and why wouldn't he? His guys aren't protecting him.

                        When Luck delivers the ball, our receivers are stone-handed.

                        Over the past month, the ONLY bright spot on offense (for me) has been Coby Fleener. He seems to be improving in an offense that is going backwards, and that's a good sign.

                        This team has a lot to get fixed. I like Pagano's ability to make adjustments. I"m not confident in Pep's ability to do the same, but this is his chance to prove me wrong. I don't like Irsay going to Twitter to rail his team all the time.

                        Rainey looks like a better returner than Reed.

                        Vinatieri has been awesome this year, he looks like he's turned back the clock a decade. He hasn't missed within 40 yards this year. He's missed 3 beyond that, but werent' 1 or 2 of them blocked? I almost can't remember him missing a FG this year, at all.
                        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 13: vs Titans

                          That 2006 team had issues on defense the offense was just fine we started 9-0 that year but with this team there are issues all around. I do think that they do realize something had to change hence the benching of T-Rich which had to be done. So at least they are willing to adapt.

                          If there's anything to lament beyond the T-Rich trade its that this team learned nothing from two years ago about having a viable backup plan for Reggie Wayne. We should've groomed his replacement a couple years ago. I thought that was going to be Garcon at one point but he's with the Redskins.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

                            I don't lament the trade at all, I lament the loss of our o-line, which has inexplicably gone backwards steadily since about week 5. I don't recall suffering too many injuries beyond Donald Thomas, so this to me is the biggest storyline going on with this team. It's not exactly a personnel issue, because this same group was playing much better earlier in the year. Joe Gilbert (did you all even know who our O-line coach was?) has some 'splainin to do. Where's Howard Mudd these days? I still think we could see some specialness if we could get our o-line rectified.
                            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 13: vs Titans

                              What drives me nuts is that it appears that Pep refuses to incorporating anything that might help combat this pathetic offensive line. We do not run screens, slants or even roll Luck out. Pep says we are a power run team and we continue to smash our head against the wall because we have to run the scheme no matter what.

                              I could accept one or two bad games, but we have been abysmal on offense for over a month and the offense has just been lost.

                              I feel so bad for Luck because he is consistently under pressure when passing, has no run game, and his top two WRs are either inconsistent (TY) or is just terrible (DHB). Luck carries the team and hopes the defense shows up to keep it close.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 13: vs Titans

                                Originally posted by Ransom View Post


                                We have Houston and Jacksonville left...just saying.
                                I know who we have left. That's how much confidence I have right now given how we're playing. We're a playoff team by record, but barring massive improvement with questionable overall personnel, we will be first game sacrificial lambs against legit comp.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X