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

Vikings - Colts

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

  • Re: Vikings - Colts

    Damn, didn't realize this, but Luck's game winning drive yesterday was the first game winning drive in September by a rookie QB since 1971 when a guy by the name of Archie Manning did it.


    Comment


    • Re: Vikings - Colts

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Damn, didn't realize this, but Luck's game winning drive yesterday was the first game winning drive in September by a rookie QB since 1971 when a guy by the name of Archie Manning did it.
      That's cool, just hope it doesn't mean the next coming of the brown bag...lol!
      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

      Comment


      • Re: Vikings - Colts

        Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
        Even tho the Vikings imploded, the Colts was able to hang in there and get a victory. I think the Vikings helped the Colts at times more then the Colts helped themselves at times. I have to give props to the Colts for the last drive and field goal.

        I really didn't think the Colts could win this game and I have to say that I was wrong. However, I'm not sure how many teams are just going to give games away like that so I am very reluctant to think Colts will win another one this year. Just have to take it one game at a time.
        Though the VIkes had stupid penalties and mistakes, but the Colts were easily up 20-6 before we took the foot off the pedal so to speak. It's not like the Vikes were just GIVING us the game.

        Comment


        • Re: Vikings - Colts

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          Though the VIkes had stupid penalties and mistakes, but the Colts were easily up 20-6 before we took the foot off the pedal so to speak. It's not like the Vikes were just GIVING us the game.
          I dont want to take away the effort of the Colts, but one of the drives was by stupid penalties by Vikings and I didn't see the Colts taking the peddle off, what I seen was the running game was being used to take time off the clock and to not give the Vikings anything easy. Just the run game was sub par, but it was good experiance.
          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

          Comment


          • Re: Vikings - Colts

            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
            I dont want to take away the effort of the Colts, but one of the drives was by stupid penalties by Vikings and I didn't see the Colts taking the peddle off, what I seen was the running game was being used to take time off the clock and to not give the Vikings anything easy. Just the run game was sub par, but it was good experiance.
            You can look at this game in mulitple ways but one way I really don't understand is why the COlts deserved to lose this game. The defense basically did a great job of winning the turn over battle and if it wasn't for a hilarious TD tip pass this game wouldn't have been close. Also the refs missed another turn over which would have greatly impacted the game.

            The Colts had a great defense this Sunday and had some great punts to control the field. There is nothing wrong with winning a close game in the last seconds with your HOF field goal kicker and let me remind everyone that this game wouldn't have been close if it was for some serious luck by the vikings offense and a missed fumble blown by the replacement refs.

            Comment


            • Re: Vikings - Colts

              Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
              I dont want to take away the effort of the Colts, but one of the drives was by stupid penalties by Vikings and I didn't see the Colts taking the peddle off, what I seen was the running game was being used to take time off the clock and to not give the Vikings anything easy. Just the run game was sub par, but it was good experiance.
              Reverse that logic. Indy going to the ground for 3 straight (failed) possessions in the 2nd half and going vanilla on defense is exactly what defines "taking the peddle off". Our D held them to 6 points for over 3 quarters, and then went vanilla and gave up 2 straight 4th quarter touchdowns. That's what you call "prevent-mode" blowing up in your face. People are absolutely right, this game was "decided" in the first 3 quarters, and the Vikes were getting blown out. The 3-point win doesn't indicate how badly Indy really won this game. It was when Indy went to prevent-mode that Minny made their "run" in the 4th quarter. You could almost label it garbage time scores, except they tied the damn thing up in that garbage time, which was a mistake on the part of the coaching staff.

              I can tell ya right now; if Pagano/Arians/Manusky want to *keep* their jobs, they better wise up to that crap... because the last few coaches/coordinators here who employed that tactic didn't last more than a season or two. You can't go into prevent mode, it doesn't work. It makes blowouts look like close-games and sometimes turns them into losses.

              I also think they need to give up on the trick plays and end-arounds. They try that crap quite often, and I'm not a fan of it.

              I understand running the ball here and there to setup the passing game, and I understand our line isn't a good run-blocking line, so that's something that I expect we'll massively address next year. For this year, we can expect to be frustrated by those zero-gain run plays, but they need to happen here and there. I wouldn't be surprised if we snag a sweet RB and some tackles/guards in this next off-season and draft and see a big improvement next year, once that $40mil in cap space frees up.

              They also need to consider the no-huddle sooner than later, because Luck is proving quickly that he's a QB capable of handling it. His 2-min offense is... damn near unstoppable, which is crazy to say for a rookie. Every 2-min late-game possession we've had --- we've marched it down the field like it was easy. For a rookie to be conducting that.... is awesome. I still say Luck is the gem of this draft, as much as anyone is swinging off RG3's nuts after that first game. Aside from the mechanics and abilities that Luck displays that separate him from the rest of those guys, his ability to run a god-damn 2-min drill in his 2nd freaking game with that much success is flat-out ridiculous and not something you see any of those other rookies or 2nd-year guys doing. I mean come on, when we got the ball back with 30 seconds I turned to my wife and said "you watch, Luck is going to get a field goal in a mere 30 secs". I was wrong. He did it in damn near 15 seconds, from his own 20. Think about that. This is his 2nd game. You don't see any other rookie, 2nd-year, and mostly 3rd-year guys doing that.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-17-2012, 11:14 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: Vikings - Colts

                We don't need to snag a running back. We need to snag offensive linemen. Running back is the least important position on a football team. Any NFL running back can run behind a good offensive line but very few can run behind this clusterf**k of an offensive line.

                Comment


                • Re: Vikings - Colts

                  Disagree. Just depends on where we draft and who is available when we draft. I also expect our O-line to make improvements as the year goes on. I'll go with best available when we draft between RB and linemen.

                  We addressed RB and o-line in 1999 and it worked out well. And we drafted a RB in the 1st. I'm not sold on Brown as an every-down back, he's too light. He's a great change-of-pace back to spot a true workhorse every-down back; sort of in the Dominique Rhodes mold.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-17-2012, 11:39 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: Vikings - Colts

                    I like Arians and I like teams that can run the ball. The Colts may have had a few more chances to go farther in the playoffs if they would have taken a more serious approach to being able to run the ball. Frankly their Super Bowl win was a credit to their defense and Dom Rhodes.
                    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vikings - Colts

                      To be fair, two of our starting lineman were out and our center went out in the middle of the game. We suck in general, and now we have to play backups and people out of position. That's going to make anybody's line suffer, though it's more pronounced due to our lack of talent there.
                      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vikings - Colts

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Reverse that logic. Indy going to the ground for 3 straight (failed) possessions in the 2nd half and going vanilla on defense is exactly what defines "taking the peddle off". Our D held them to 6 points for over 3 quarters, and then went vanilla and gave up 2 straight 4th quarter touchdowns. That's what you call "prevent-mode" blowing up in your face. People are absolutely right, this game was "decided" in the first 3 quarters, and the Vikes were getting blown out. The 3-point win doesn't indicate how badly Indy really won this game. It was when Indy went to prevent-mode that Minny made their "run" in the 4th quarter. You could almost label it garbage time scores, except they tied the damn thing up in that garbage time, which was a mistake on the part of the coaching staff.


                        I understand running the ball here and there to setup the passing game, and I understand our line isn't a good run-blocking line, so that's something that I expect we'll massively address next year. For this year, we can expect to be frustrated by those zero-gain run plays, but they need to happen here and there. I wouldn't be surprised if we snag a sweet RB and some tackles/guards in this next off-season and draft and see a big improvement next year, once that $40mil in cap space frees up.

                        They also need to consider the no-huddle sooner than later, because Luck is proving quickly that he's a QB capable of handling it. His 2-min offense is... damn near unstoppable, which is crazy to say for a rookie. Every 2-min late-game possession we've had --- we've marched it down the field like it was easy. For a rookie to be conducting that.... is awesome. I still say Luck is the gem of this draft, as much as anyone is swinging off RG3's nuts after that first game. Aside from the mechanics and abilities that Luck displays that separate him from the rest of those guys, his ability to run a god-damn 2-min drill in his 2nd freaking game with that much success is flat-out ridiculous and not something you see any of those other rookies or 2nd-year guys doing. I mean come on, when we got the ball back with 30 seconds I turned to my wife and said "you watch, Luck is going to get a field goal in a mere 30 secs". I was wrong. He did it in damn near 15 seconds, from his own 20. Think about that. This is his 2nd game. You don't see any other rookie, 2nd-year, and mostly 3rd-year guys doing that.
                        Yes Luck has looked impressive within the two minute offense in the few opportunities that he's had to run it, but the Vikings were in the very same "prevent defense" that the colts were playing when they gave up the TD. ((I don't remember if the Bears were in the same type of defensive setup when the Colts were marching down the field for the FGA.)) You said it yourself, being in prevent defense is a quick way to allow the offense move down the field. With that said, getting us in FG position in 30 seconds is pretty awesome -- I'd be Pi$$ED if I were a VIking fan lol.

                        I love Luck's accuracy while throwing on the move. He's mobile in that he's still looking to pass, only looking to run at the very last second when he HAS to. In spite of having a much worse O-Line, Luck isn't getting hit NEARLY as often as Griffin simply because he's being smarter about looking to pass when flushed from the pocket.

                        Griffin has looked really good, and he is on a very different level as far as athleticism is concerned at the QB position. His bomb yesterday was a perfect pass (whereas Luck's was a tad underthrown) BUT Griffin won't last if he keeps taking so many hits.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vikings - Colts

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          You can look at this game in mulitple ways but one way I really don't understand is why the COlts deserved to lose this game. The defense basically did a great job of winning the turn over battle and if it wasn't for a hilarious TD tip pass this game wouldn't have been close. Also the refs missed another turn over which would have greatly impacted the game.

                          The Colts had a great defense this Sunday and had some great punts to control the field. There is nothing wrong with winning a close game in the last seconds with your HOF field goal kicker and let me remind everyone that this game wouldn't have been close if it was for some serious luck by the vikings offense and a missed fumble blown by the replacement refs.
                          The Colts won this game fair and square and deserve every bit of the victory! Doesn't matter who does what on either side of the ball, when the time runs out you have an end result and the Colts had the most points. This game wasn't decided by striped shirts.

                          As far as my previous comments, I just don't see future teams being as reckless as the Vikings and thus making the Colts having to perform even better to get future wins.
                          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vikings - Colts

                            Well, it's because, as we all know, you only deserve to win if you win decisively.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vikings - Colts

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Yes Luck has looked impressive within the two minute offense in the few opportunities that he's had to run it, but the Vikings were in the very same "prevent defense" .................
                              Everyone, I mean EVERYONE always says stuff like this about prevent D's. If EVERYONE is right, if EVERYONE is a better football mind than highschool, college and pro coaches - then why do all these teams use it ?? Someone is right and I think I'll go with the coaches instead of biased fans.

                              Luck moved the ball well enough in the 2 minute stuff to score points. So did Peyton. I'll bet Jake Locker or Brandon Weeden wouldn't move the ball that well in that situation.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vikings - Colts

                                An old coach once opined- If the prevent defense is so good, why don't teams play it the whole game?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X