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

Andrew Luck!!!!

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

  • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

    The best team in the NFL rarely wins the Super Bowl. The Colts weren't the best team when they did. They were a few times when they didn't.

    There's too much luck involved with winning a single elimination tournament for me to use that to determine an individual's greatness.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      But I don't think you're ever going to hear a serious NFL observer say that Dilfer is a better QB than Marino. Likewise, you're not going to hear many people say that Eli is better than Peyton. It's obviously silly to use rings when you're comparing quarterbacks of vastly different skill sets. Eli isn't on Peyton's level because Peyton routinely plays at an elite level and gets into the playoffs every year, whereas Eli has often looked played so poorly that the Giants can't even make it to the postseason.

      But it's very fair to use postseason when you're comparing Brady and Manning because both of these guys are in the same elite class of quarterback. Both of these guys more or less have identical regular season success. They each win a boatload of games every season and almost always win their divisions. They are the elite of the elite as far as regular season quarterbacking is concerned. So what's left to differentiate between them? The playoffs, and the playoffs clearly tilt it in Brady's favor.
      But it doesn't matter that Brady was not considered elite in the years they did win a Super Bowl?
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        But it doesn't matter that Brady was not considered elite in the years they did win a Super Bowl?
        He was certainly considered elite by the time they won their second and third Super Bowls.

        Comment


        • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          He was certainly considered elite by the time they won their second and third Super Bowls.
          Before 2004, he wasn't ever in the top 5 in yards, touchdowns, passer rating, or any other statistic that would be used to evaluate an elite quarterback. He never made an All-Pro team until 2005.

          He wasn't considered an elite quarterback while they were winning Super Bowls.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

            Listen, I'm not going to sit here and say Peyton doesn't deserve a huge part of the blame for why we didn't win more playoff games than we should have. There were so many times when our offense stalled, we had absolutely no running game, and Peyton refused to even try to run the ball. We had so many more 3 and outs in the playoffs than we ever did during the regular season. It was mind boggling. The difference in the playoffs is that everybody's intensity goes up multiple times. The problem with how our offense was constructed was that it was based off of timing and route precision, so the defense's extra intensity allowed the players to jump routes and made their physical play disruptive to our timing. Peyton was unable or unwilling to adjust to that in the playoffs and we suffered for it. Look at the year we won. We ran the ball down their throats and minimized Peyton's throwing, the AFC title game being the exception where Peyton abused the Pats. Peyton was generally never awful in the playoffs, but he was never able to raise his game.

            I place the lion's share of blame on Bill Polian and Tony Dungy. Our defense was utter ****. They were inept and completely unable to stop anybody, and they would give up these ridiculously long drives and therefore never let the offense get the ball very often during the game. Not only that, but our defense was incapable of getting TOs or special teams incapable of getting field position past the 20 yard line, which meant that everytime we wanted to score, we would have to march all the way down the field. Every. Freaking. Time. It's really hard to win in the playoffs if your defense doesn't do **** for you. And the blame on that goes to Dungy, whose defensive philosophy is ridiculous and worthless, and Polian, whose arrogance probably cost us multiple titles for his unwillingness to take his head out of his *** and do something to fix that defense. Those are the two I blame the most.

            I'm not a huge fan of the West Coast offense, but our defense plays anything like it has the last 2 preseason games, with Luck at QB, we are going to kick some *** this year.
            Last edited by Suaveness; 08-28-2013, 05:30 PM.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              Before 2004, he wasn't ever in the top 5 in yards, touchdowns, passer rating, or any other statistic that would be used to evaluate an elite quarterback. He never made an All-Pro team until 2005.

              He wasn't considered an elite quarterback while they were winning Super Bowls.

              By the time the third Super Bowl was over, I think he was definitely considered elite. He posted a 100.5 passer rating in the second Super Bowl, and a 110.2 rating in the third. Even if he wasn't top 5 in any of the regular season metrics, he was an ace in the postseason.

              Comment


              • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                I do agree that the Colts were not built for the playoffs during the Manning years and I absolutely do put a lot of the blame on Polian's arrogance and flawed defensive scheme. What should have been a great Colts era of multi championships never came to pass. Even Irsay said the era was a disappointment. That baloney small, fast defense, play with the lead, bend but don't break nonsense doesn't work that well if you can't build a lead on a frozen tundra field of NE.

                Comment


                • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                  At one time the book was the Colts were going to score a lot of points so to beat them you had to score whenever you could. And as much as you could. That meant gambling on 4th and 1 instead punting and playing field position. It meant going for it and leaving an almost sure FG off the board and instead trying to get a TD or another series of downs in the red zone. It meant trying to go downfield quickly in the air rather than grounding it out. Of course it meant gadget plays and on sides kicks.

                  But it quickly spread around that old fundamentals were still at play. If you ground and pound then the Manning offense is on the bench. If the Colts defense isn't able to stop the run then why bother gambling on gadget plays and throwing the ball? The fewer possession you give the Colts the more pressure you put on Manning and the offense to be perfect. That kind of pressure has never been Manning's forte because eventually he tries to throw the hero ball... and sometimes it worked and others you were left wondering what he was thinking. The Colts' run defense was so bad that teams could run even on passing downs. Two reasons for that really... one being the team was intentionally weak against the run because coaching or management never adjusted to the idea other teams wouldn't be madly scrambling to score early and often. And the other being the 'always on' pass rush mentality that saw the team be super susceptible to delayed handoffs. For example: Just let Freeney go head-hunting for the QB, spin himself out of his lane, and then hand the ball to the RB who now hits the lane that Freeney just vacated.

                  I still think the Colts won their SB because the team finished the season SO BAD against the run that they simply sold out to stop it in the playoffs (or else be one and done) and nobody actually adjusted. Plus obviously the return of Bob Sanders helped.

                  Anyway... I agree with Suaveness. The playoffs were going to ramp things up to negate reg season success and expose weaknesses. IMHO Once the house of cards was exposed and everybody realized the Colts' defense was built to funnel teams right into the perfect offense to beat them (just take what the Colts gave you and be conservative) then TPTB needed to make changes. They never did.

                  It appears Irsay has learned a lesson from that. At least I hope so....
                  Last edited by Bball; 08-28-2013, 05:58 PM.
                  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: Andrew Luck!!!!

                    Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                    I do agree that the Colts were not built for the playoffs during the Manning years and I absolutely do put a lot of the blame on Polian's arrogance and flawed defensive scheme. What should have been a great Colts era of multi championships never came to pass. Even Irsay said the era was a disappointment. That baloney small, fast defense, play with the lead, bend but don't break nonsense doesn't work that well if you can't build a lead on a frozen tundra field of NE.
                    You start the season with a small and fast defense and by the time the season is winding down they are nicked up and beat up and not nearly so fast... but they're still small!
                    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: Andrew Luck!!!!

                      This is one of my favorite charts. It shows very well how Tom Brady's teams and Peyton Manning's teams have been virtually identical offensively during the postseason:

                      http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...edition/21247/

                      Brady's teams punt a little more while Manning's teams turn it over a little more. Manning's teams have had worse starting field position on average, but he has gained a little more yardage per drive than Brady's teams have, which is why their points per drive are virtually identical.

                      Now should have Manning's offenses been better than Brady's offenses in the playoffs? Probably, but not quite as much as it would feel like on first instinct. Brady's offensive lines have almost always been better, and each have had inconsistent running games (Manning's in particular was awful in his later years with the Colts). Manning's receiving options on average have been quite a bit better, so it just depends on what you feel like you value more to determine how big the advantage was on talent around them.

                      But what it does show is that the Colts losses have not been because the offense sputtered while the Patriots offense soared. They've been really close, but the Patriots defensive and special teams advantages have helped them win more postseason games.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        And neither QB won a ring without Adam Vinateri either... you can make so many arguments here... there are so many factors that are involved in winning championships.. I do think Brady gets a bit of a pass though because he won 3 rings early in his career. I mean I thought he played worse than Manning against the Ravens in the playoffs and not nearly as much grief either.
                        It is kind of hilarious that Brady has lost his last 2 SB's against, in my opinion, inferior Giants team, yet he is never called out as a choker.
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          It is kind of hilarious that Brady has lost his last 2 SB's against, in my opinion, inferior Giants team, yet he is never called out as a choker.
                          I don't remember Brady being the reason they lost. But then again, neither game stands out except they were both close and the Giants had that one ginormous catch on the game-winning, crunch-time drive.
                          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: Andrew Luck!!!!

                            I think there was a reason we had small, fast defenses --- they are cheaper. Indy had 65% of it's cap tied up in the offense. It was just the direction they went in. Investing so much in the offense put butts in the seats for a franchise that sorely needed some butts. Unfortunately, as we've all come to find out.... offense rarely wins champions by itself. I dunno, the philosophy turned Indy into a football town, so I can't say it didn't work. But I like the direction they're going in now.
                            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: Andrew Luck!!!!

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              I think there was a reason we had small, fast defenses --- they are cheaper. Indy had 65% of it's cap tied up in the offense. It was just the direction they went in. Investing so much in the offense put butts in the seats for a franchise that sorely needed some butts. Unfortunately, as we've all come to find out.... offense rarely wins champions by itself. I dunno, the philosophy turned Indy into a football town, so I can't say it didn't work. But I like the direction they're going in now.
                              wait until Luck gets his new mega contract, that's where Grigson'll have to earn his stripes. not on getting Luck at a fair price (he'll basically get a blank check), but building a balanced, strong team around that contract after Luck's salary probably quintuples.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                                I never really thought that Peyton threw the offensive line under the bus after that horrible Divisional Round loss against the Steelers. Saying that the line had some protection problems was just telling the truth without being an *** about it. But of course the media blew it out of proportion like they always do. Win as a team and lose as one, and I'm sure he put blame on himself in that postgame interview as well. But it's over and in the past.

                                Polian and Dungy have to take some blame as some of you have already said. We had 2 Super Bowl appearances with the Dungy and Polian philosophy and only one win. Which I'm not complaining about, but we probably should have had more.

                                As hard as it was to see Peyton go, I'm glad we decided to start over and end the Dungy/Polian kind of thinking and I loved Dungy, but it just simply wasn't getting it done enough. As for Polian, let's just say I don't share the same respect for him as I do for Dungy.

                                and let's win some damn Super Bowls!
                                Last edited by Lord Helmet; 08-29-2013, 03:13 AM.
                                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X