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

2016 Colts Preseason Thread

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

  • #16
    Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

    They need to sit Luck out for the whole pre season

    Sent from my Nexus 5X

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Let me just add.... Pagano sure made it odd with his post game comments about Luck not playing. Basically, DNP-CD. And if anyone asked him to elaborate he chalked up to DNP-CD. No insight at all. Hmmmm
      It was apparently due to Rex Ryan's aggressive style in the preseason....

      Here's the link http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...preseason-game
      Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

        Originally posted by Mr_Smith View Post
        It was apparently due to Rex Ryan's aggressive style in the preseason....

        Here's the link http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...preseason-game
        I wonder if Pagano made the call or Irsay made the call? I just find it weird the way Pagano 'explained' it by not explaining it at all. There were probably a hundred things he could've said that would've been legitimate potential reasons, even if he was spinning them to hide the real or main reason. By answering the way he did with a non-answer it just makes the whole thing weird.

        I don't think Luck's hurt or anything like that... Fearing a revamped line, in the rain with poor field conditions, with a new coaching staff, against a team that gets aggressive and wants to practice their defense probably as much or more than the Colts want to tweak and practice their offense, all makes sense to keep Luck out. And how hard would it have been to have said "We just thought with the soggy field and rain, and this now our first game with the new line and coaches, that we didn't really need to see Luck out there today while we worked on some things. Plus it gave us the opportunity to give the backups some more game experience and us more to evaluate". He says that and nobody is talking about this today. Rex Ryan isn't talking about Irsay or mad because his preseason coaching has been put into question, and it's onto the next almost meaningless preseason 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


        • #19
          Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

          Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
          They need to sit Luck out for the whole pre season

          Sent from my Nexus 5X
          Yeah that's not happening and it probably shouldn't considering Luck hasn't played since last November.

          Regardless it was strange seeing the Colts win a preseason game(a surprisingly entertaining one.)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

            Am I the only one that feels like the Colts are in for years of mediocrity from this point out. The days of dominating the division are over. Irsay made a grave mistake by retaining Pagano and Grigson IMO. Not trying to be a downer as I'm hoping for the best and always root on the Colts, but it's how I honestly feel at this point. Hope to **** that I'm wrong.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

              I don't know what to expect, but we still went 8-8 last year even though pretty much everything that could go wrong went wrong.

              We aren't playing a first place schedule this year, which means no NE.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Let me just add.... Pagano sure made it odd with his post game comments about Luck not playing. Basically, DNP-CD. And if anyone asked him to elaborate he chalked up to DNP-CD. No insight at all. Hmmmm
                I think he was just having way too much fun with those questions.

                He was really getting their goat. I enjoyed it all.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                  With the philosophy correction from trying to contend quickly with hired gun veterans via free agency to a more gradual building and development of young guys (particularly in the trenches) through the draft, I think it will be more indicative of the coaching staff's abilities. Although given the influx of youth, it probably buys them a slightly bigger window in which to work.

                  Of course, the window could be curtailed significantly if Pagano and his staff don't show improvement in overall strategy and especially in-game adjustments. I'm just trying to be open minded and give the Pagano and Grigson a reasonable chance to redeem themselves. It will be hard to be patient if Pagano immediately reverts to mind-numbing decisions in game.

                  One thing I don't think is too much of snap judgment is that our backup QB situation has reverted back to disastrous. But, again, you're in trouble if you lose a Manning or a Luck for more than a few games regardless. Hoping the right side of the O-line shows some serious quick growth for this reason.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                    One thing I don't think is too much of snap judgment is that our backup QB situation has reverted back to disastrous. But, again, you're in trouble if you lose a Manning or a Luck for more than a few games regardless. Hoping the right side of the O-line shows some serious quick growth for this reason.
                    I think Morris did quite well, given the situation. One hell of a lot better than Curtis Painter ever even thought of doing.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                      Am I the only one that feels like the Colts are in for years of mediocrity from this point out. The days of dominating the division are over. Irsay made a grave mistake by retaining Pagano and Grigson IMO. Not trying to be a downer as I'm hoping for the best and always root on the Colts, but it's how I honestly feel at this point. Hope to **** that I'm wrong.
                      You are not. I feel like we're slowly drifting into 8-10 win purgatory unless Luck turns into a top 3 QB (which he could…jury's still out on whether we can keep him healthy). If you look back at the beginning of the Manning era, we had that awful first season, then quickly became a contender, lost Edge for a year and went 6-10, changed coaches, then Manning reached a new level and the rest is history.

                      Compare that to what we've seen in the Luck era: we never had that bad first season, we went 8-8 instead of 6-10 and we kept our coach and GM. It remains to be seen how good Luck can become, but it honestly shouldn't surprise anyone if it's far below what some of our fans are expecting from him. Manning was a once every generation QB, and we may never again see a player impact the game like he did. And as good as he was, he wasn't doing it all by himself. This team doesn't have a Marvin Harrison. It doesn't have an Edgerrin James. It doesn't even have a Dwight Freeney.

                      Crazy things can happen in the NFL, and maybe some year, everything will fall into place again like it did in 06. But I know one thing is for certain: we're not rattling off seven consecutive 12+ win seasons again. Those days are done.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                        Am I the only one that feels like the Colts are in for years of mediocrity from this point out. The days of dominating the division are over. Irsay made a grave mistake by retaining Pagano and Grigson IMO. Not trying to be a downer as I'm hoping for the best and always root on the Colts, but it's how I honestly feel at this point. Hope to **** that I'm wrong.
                        I think Pagano/Grigson will last a couple more years then they will be fired and the new coach will take us to SB 54 not sure if we win it.

                        However if Pagano/Grigson stay beyond that I agree I am not expecting much.

                        With Manning you can pencil in a 10 + win season and not give it a second thought. You can't with these guys.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          I think Pagano/Grigson will last a couple more years then they will be fired and the new coach will take us to SB 54 not sure if we win it.

                          However if Pagano/Grigson stay beyond that I agree I am not expecting much.

                          With Manning you can pencil in a 10 + win season and not give it a second thought. You can't with these guys.
                          I think this is the season we start getting an answer to these kind of questions. Pagano lost some of his control as Grigson usurped it and they became less of a team pulling in the same direction. The job save for both of them after least season had to include a reboot and Pagano regaining some coaching control IMO. This probably has lead to a different emphasis on team building, and certainly a different emphasis on player control and the coaching roster.
                          The O line and Pep Hamilton were not a good mix for example. It's one thing to have a bad O-line, it's another to make them look worse by running plays that are slow to develop and just put more pressure on them. Some of that may be on Luck as well. Maybe that is why there is a new QB coach as well....
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            I think this is the season we start getting an answer to these kind of questions. Pagano lost some of his control as Grigson usurped it and they became less of a team pulling in the same direction. The job save for both of them after least season had to include a reboot and Pagano regaining some coaching control IMO. This probably has lead to a different emphasis on team building, and certainly a different emphasis on player control and the coaching roster.
                            The O line and Pep Hamilton were not a good mix for example. It's one thing to have a bad O-line, it's another to make them look worse by running plays that are slow to develop and just put more pressure on them. Some of that may be on Luck as well. Maybe that is why there is a new QB coach as well....

                            IMO its wishful thinking for anyone that thinks Pagano/Grigson will be canned if the Colts have another mediocre season after Irsay put out that public front in January they will coexist. I doubt Irsay wants to be shown he might be wrong about this. I think it would take two more bad seasons for Irsay to pull the plug on them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              IMO its wishful thinking for anyone that thinks Pagano/Grigson will be canned if the Colts have another mediocre season after Irsay put out that public front in January they will coexist. I doubt Irsay wants to be shown he might be wrong about this. I think it would take two more bad seasons for Irsay to pull the plug on them.
                              I tend to agree, both because of what you suggest, and because the approach seems to have shifted to more gradual development via draft/young players. If that's true, you can't just can them after one year. As Ball said, it's essentially a total reboot. It will be interesting. If we are just miserable this year though, I think seats could be simmering going into that second season. If we're mediocre, not so much.
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 2016 Colts Preseason Thread

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                .......... Pep Hamilton .....
                                There's where the problem was. Hamilton was horrendous. He never caught on that he wasn't in college anymore. I think that Luck and the offense improve quite a bit this season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X