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 Since86 View Post
    Harvey. The Colts would have been better off going with this Harvey.

    Yeah, if we have to play that guy against Denver Peyton is going to score 7 TDs just on him. But in general the D did play well enough for us to win, I would have liked to have seen some more aggressive coverages on the outside


    Comment


    • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Exactly. It's hard to win the time of possession when you're going 3 and out every time!
      To be fair, they weren't really 3 and outs. Ended up the same though.

      15:00 1 03:33 IND 20 8 69 Field Goal
      10:20 1 02:04 IND 28 3 7 Punt
      05:35 1 02:11 IND 7 5 19 Punt
      12:02 2 02:12 IND 20 5 20 Punt
      01:41 2 01:41 IND 29 8 38 Field Goal
      00:00 2 00:00 SDG 0 1 End of Half
      09:05 3 05:01 IND 20 9 40 Punt
      09:43 4 02:22 IND 20 6 47 Field Goal
      04:27 4 00:58 IND 9 3 8 Punt
      01:55 4 00:48 IND 25 4 20 Intercepted Pass
      And not going for it on 4th and 2, royally pissed me off. Watching Pat shank the punt bout cost me a tv.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

        I'm not really much of a Colts fan anymore, I watch the occasional game, but I just dont' get into like I used to. Can't support a team that blows up a perfect season, but i watched last night so that I can build up for next week against Manning.

        1. They did not even give themselves a chance to win. 4th and 2 with 3 minutes and change and they elect to punt. Ridiculousness. At least go for a fake punt, show some balls and actually try to win the game.

        2. Man football is really boring now compared to basketball. Going to Pacer games for the past 5 years has cemented this in me. NBA and basketball is just so much more lively.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          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.
          When Luck was rookie they had had to slow down the implementation of the no huddle offense not because Luck needed it. It was because everyone needed to catch up to where Luck was at. The fact that we have not implemented a hurry up offense or even give Luck the freedom to really audible out of plays is very curious. It sometimes feels like our offense is a college offense where everyone has to look at the sidelines for what to do.

          We see our offense start to rev up when we pick up the pace. Trent has shown he does much better in a more spread out offense and a more up temp offense. Luck sure as hell looks better doing it as well. We get a big gain on offense and then we kill any momentum because we have to do 20 million substitutions because we got to have that power formation in almost every drive.

          Pep is not horrible, but he needs to adjust his offense and give more leash to Luck and let Luck be Luck. I get their philosophy and I love it to a point but the bottom line is our best player is Luck and he is going to be the reason we win or lose. I wish they would just open up the offense and let Luck be Luck. I rather lose having Luck throw us out of the game than lose because we gave guys like Trent or Donald.

          Comment


          • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            I'm not really much of a Colts fan anymore, I watch the occasional game, but I just dont' get into like I used to. Can't support a team that blows up a perfect season, but i watched last night so that I can build up for next week against Manning.

            1. They did not even give themselves a chance to win. 4th and 2 with 3 minutes and change and they elect to punt. Ridiculousness. At least go for a fake punt, show some balls and actually try to win the game.

            2. Man football is really boring now compared to basketball. Going to Pacer games for the past 5 years has cemented this in me. NBA and basketball is just so much more lively.
            I agree with your point on that 4th and 2. To me it was a no brainer. SD was miliking the clock all night, you needed to go for it. I would have run a Luck read option there.


            Comment


            • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              I'm not really much of a Colts fan anymore, I watch the occasional game, but I just dont' get into like I used to. Can't support a team that blows up a perfect season, but i watched last night so that I can build up for next week against Manning.

              1. They did not even give themselves a chance to win. 4th and 2 with 3 minutes and change and they elect to punt. Ridiculousness. At least go for a fake punt, show some balls and actually try to win the game.

              2. Man football is really boring now compared to basketball. Going to Pacer games for the past 5 years has cemented this in me. NBA and basketball is just so much more lively.
              I like NBA but it's the opposite for me. NFL is much more fun to watch.

              Comment


              • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                I rather lose having Luck throw us out of the game than lose because we gave guys like Trent or Donald.
                Speaking of Trent, it's almost like they want Luck to turn into Trent Dilfer and just not lose the game for them as opposed to going out and winning it.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Speaking of Trent, it's almost like they want Luck to turn into Trent Dilfer and just not lose the game for them as opposed to going out and winning it.
                  Sad thing is, Trent's best rookie game was against SD and he had a good game yesterday (other than the drop and a missed block) but we were only able to get him 10 carries.

                  Pep is really just holding everyone back. Luck doesn't get into a rhythm, the receivers are going up against rested DBs, and the OLine and RBs are trying to blast through DL and LBs that are getting half a minute or more to rest between plays. I really think our offense is a sleeping giant. Even with our pretty pedestrian numbers so far through the air, we were the 4th highest scoring offense at nearly 28 a game going into last night. Imagine what might be possible if we just picked up the pace even a little bit


                  Comment


                  • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                    Maybe one day we'll see some beautiful play action with Richardson. I was hoping that his acquisition would lead to the stuff we used to do with Edge back in the day.

                    Great post, thewhole. The constant substitutions are maybe the most irritating thing about this offense.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Maybe one day we'll see some beautiful play action with Richardson. I was hoping that his acquisition would lead to the stuff we used to do with Edge back in the day.

                      Great post, thewhole. The constant substitutions are maybe the most irritating thing about this offense.
                      We did some really strong plays off the Trent play action, Reggie had a nice look over the middle and I think the Fleener drop was off of play action. People are worried about Trent. We traded for the guy to be an every down back and I just don't get the obsession with a fullback. It's not like Havili is even that good. Our best sets are 3 wide with a TE and let Trent and Luck be the only people in the backfield. That is already a terrifying amount of beef and talent in the backfield. Trent's run after his catch yesterday showed how ****ing terrifying he can be in the open field. We don't need to clog it up with what is, let's just flat out say it, a decidedly mediocre fullback.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I'm dreading that we're going to see one of those 4 receptions/45 yards/0 touchdowns games from T.Y.

                        It's haunting how dead on this was. He ended up with 5 receptions/43 yards. Though in fairness to T.Y., everyone on our offense had a hideous fantasy (and real) game.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                          Have we passed once out of the I formation? I mean with all that talk about how predictable we are, at least make their F guessing a bit.

                          As being said before, I agree in a degree what they want to do with this team and developing the running game etc. What is frustrating is to have someone being stubborn and think that if one thing worked in college, it will definitely work in the NFL too.
                          I honestly hope Pep is not that guy.
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                            I didn't really have too much of a problem not going for it on 4th and 2. The team is trying to build a defensive identity. Some of SD's sustained drives were at least partially due to flags. IIRC the Colts had 3 TO's left. IF you don't make that 4th and 2 it's all but guaranteed the game is over (even if SD doesn't gain a yard or lose a few a FG was a near certainty). IF there'd been a decent punt, and the team plays good D and limits those mistakes, then we get the ball back, albeit without TO's, and have one last chance to tie the game. Not to mention a chance at grabbing a turnover.

                            The most important part of that is 'the team is trying to build a defensive identity'. That sways me to being OK with punting the ball there. It's not like the team had been absolutely awful defensively this game or the season. And the D did alright at the end... SD hit a long FG to seal the game. A better punt and maybe that FG opportunity isn't there. So maybe the Colts lost the battle but they still scored points in the war because Pagano didn't shy away from giving his D a chance to make a mark on the game. Maybe that pays dividends down the road with him showing that confidence in the D.

                            I can't say it hurts the O's confidence because buried that deep on a 4th and 2, with TO's, yada yada yada you certainly still had time to make a difference and gain another possession with the D.

                            I'll take off the horse shoe shaped, blue colored glasses now...
                            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

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              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.
                              Well last night was Monday night football. So that is equal is it not to Sunday Night football?

                              I would guess they probably do see it as more than just a regular Sunday football game. But probably 90% of the reason why they see it that way is because the Broncos are undefeated, Manning is an alltime great, and it is on Sunday night football. I mean if you want to say 10% is becauee manning used to play here, I might buy that, but only 10%.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Week 6: @ Chargers

                                When you don't execute, it makes your gameplan look stupid.

                                I'm passing this off for it probably is --- a bad game. Obviously, they are capable of playing better. Luck and Vinateiri showed up. That was it.

                                These guys didn't eat their Wheaties or their V8 before this game. They looked unfocused. The got beat at almost every individual match-up. They were missing blocks. They were dropping passes. Missing tackles. When that happens... you don't execute your plays. When you don't execute your plays, people start wondering what the hell you're doing. The gameplan we hoped to execute was what SD actually executed. They beat us at our own game. And for whatever reason... the Chargers just absolutely have our number as a franchise. We always lose to these fockers. I actually said that at the beginning of this thread... was hoping it wouldn't happen... but here we are.

                                I expect we'll come out against Denver looking a little more focused. We still may not win, simply because Manning is Otherworld right now, and Denver is just a better team.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-15-2013, 03:46 PM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X