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

Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

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

  • #61
    Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Btw, I thought our D was impressive last night. It was a bend-not-break D. We let them get into the red zone, but never let them punch it in for the score. Had to keep settling for FGs. I'm perfectly fine with that.
    I agree, and one of those trips to the red zone was because of the pass interference call on that long throw by Eli to Cruz.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

      Luck is just so good. I'm still giddy that we were able to draft him.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

        At the State Fair, I saw someone wearing a Manning Bronco jersey with a Colt hat. That combination clashed both aesthetically and metaphorically. People like that better pick their allegiance by October 20. Any Colts season ticket holder who shows up in ugly Bronco orange should have their tickets revoked immediately so that a true Colts fan can get them. I'm going to throw up if I hear any "Colts fans" on messages boards saying that they are happy for Peyton if the Broncos win that game. I want to win that game more than anything in front of a national audience, and I'm going to be upset if we don't.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          If healthy, I think Bradshaw will do a lot for us. Unfortunately, we're likely going to be worrying about his health all season. But the guy did rush for 1015 yards last year.
          The problem I saw last night was it appeared that our O-line was creating zero running opportunities for our backs... Ballard and Brown just had nowhere to go, often getting hit as soon as they were handed the ball, or getting hit way behind the line of scrimmage. I actually like our entire group of RBs... hell, having Donald Brown as a third option means you're in a pretty good spot. But if our line doesn't open up any holes, it won't matter at all, and we'll be leaning on Luck all season long (which... isn't an entirely unpleasant thought, haha).
          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


          • #65
            Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            The problem I saw last night was it appeared that our O-line was creating zero running opportunities for our backs... Ballard and Brown just had nowhere to go, often getting hit as soon as they were handed the ball, or getting hit way behind the line of scrimmage. I actually like our entire group of RBs... hell, having Donald Brown as a third option means you're in a pretty good spot. But if our line doesn't open up any holes, it won't matter at all, and we'll be leaning on Luck all season long (which... isn't an entirely unpleasant thought, haha).

            True. The Giants in recent years have had a very solid veteran offensive line. That obviously helped Bradshaw immensely.

            That being said, we saw that Ballard was able to shine at times last year. I'm crossing my fingers that the line will improve and that Bradshaw can stay healthy. I'm just worried that we're going to be hearing a lot of "not practicing this week, game time decision on Sunday".

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              At the State Fair, I saw someone wearing a Manning Bronco jersey with a Colt hat. That combination clashed both aesthetically and metaphorically.
              Did the hat have any dust on it from that person storing it away when the Colts cut Manning then taking it out again when Luck won 11 games?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                Luck should have won ROY last year and it shouldn't have even been close. What he did last year with our O-line was amazing. He was running for his life on more plays than not.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Our passing game is so much better than our running game, it's probly gonna be a lot like the Manning years where the offense starts with the pass to open up the run. They keep emphasizing getting the run game going, and thus far, it's not worked. And they keep going back to Luck to get the ball moving, which he seems to do with ridiculous ease.
                  I think using the WC offense, a lot of those screens and short passes can be considered "runs", which they alluded to last night. Either way, they help open things up for the long passing game, which thankfully we haven't abandoned. I feel like there will be more situations this year where we'll have more one-on-one coverage downfield thanks to our short game, which should open things up beautifully for TY.
                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    At the State Fair, I saw someone wearing a Manning Bronco jersey with a Colt hat. That combination clashed both aesthetically and metaphorically. People like that better pick their allegiance by October 20. Any Colts season ticket holder who shows up in ugly Bronco orange should have their tickets revoked immediately so that a true Colts fan can get them. I'm going to throw up if I hear any "Colts fans" on messages boards saying that they are happy for Peyton if the Broncos win that game. I want to win that game more than anything in front of a national audience, and I'm going to be upset if we don't.
                    I am far from a fashonista but that Bronco orange is probably the most hideous uniform color in the NFL. It is literally construction worker orange, who thought that was a good idea? Seems a few shades lighter (ugh) than the old-school Bronco orange.

                    I am with you, I'm "on leave" from being a Manning fan until he retires. I'll feel good for him the day he walks away from the game but I wish the Broncos nothing at all in the meantime. Not that I want him to get hurt, I just don't think any better of him than anyone else not wearing Colts blue.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                      Luck should have won ROY last year and it shouldn't have even been close. What he did last year with our O-line was amazing. He was running for his life on more plays than not.
                      I wouldn't trade Luck for any QB right now he wasn't ROY. You don't make ROY for staying alive but for your QB rating. This year and next we will see his full potential.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        I wouldn't trade Luck for any QB right now he wasn't ROY. You don't make ROY for staying alive but for your QB rating. This year and next we will see his full potential.
                        Last year's ROY was a popularity contest. RG3 had the cool-factor, the flashy smile, the electric speed. He is so damn cool. There's a LOT of flash with RG3. Luck is substance. Take all the cool crap out of the picture, there's no way RG3 stacks up with Luck --- on the field. There was nothing that suggested RG3 actually out-performed Luck last year. He made worse decisions with his body, played less actual time, threw way less, and had to make way less reads, and way less complicated reads behind a much better o-line and a true running back at his side. RG3 didn't have the mountain to overcome that Luck had; a rookie coach who had cancer all year; a new GM; replacing the Greatest QB of our Era; running a no-huddle, calling his own plays, making much more complicated reads and throws; a team of practice squad and off-the-street players and rookies comprising one of the smallest actual team salaries in the league. He ran a much riskier offense, with a much worse supporting cast. Luck is taking all the credit for his sacks last year, but no one here actually believes that, he's just doing lip service and taking one for the team. Our line was f'n terrible. He was chased and hit all year long. His pocket collapsed faster than you could blink. Luck still won more games, had more yards, more TDs. Because of the style of offense he was in, his completion % was lower and his INTs were higher. That's exactly what it came down to. Just like in their final year of college, RG3 woo'd everyone with his flash and charisma, and stole an award. RG3's not a bad player... but he's never going to be Luck *on the field*. It's just going to take a few years for the cream to rise and people can start to see past all the extra-curricular RG3 fluff. I'm way past the point of RG3-lash; if I have to see him vogue'ing on the sidelines, trying to look cute, making public appearances, daily media conferences, making cute wedding announcements, cruising the streets of DC like some darling prince, having media battles with his coach, seeing him needlessly sprinting and jumping for the crowd to show his recovery progress, high-fiving the entire stadium, doing his cute lil hand-flip after he throws a ball, his sock fetish, his hat collection --- I might puke. Too much cuteness. But right now, everyone is eating it up. I said it a year ago; the true QBs to come out of that draft were Luck, Wilson, Tannehill, and Cousins. I still have 100% belief in that. I look at what Wash gave up for him, knowing what they actually drafted in Cousins, thinking they could've kept all those picks and beefed up their entire team... I really feel bad for that franchise in a few years. Who knows, maybe RG3 will prove me wrong and have an extended, electric career... it's realllllyl hard for me to see that now.... I mostly foresee everyone getting over the cuteness within a few years, will get tired of hearing from him... will get tired of nagging injuries.... it's a career that has all the markings of a trail-off. But I could be wrong. It happens. Once every few years.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-20-2013, 12:30 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


                        • #72
                          Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                          You got that right. The RG3 hype is just ridiculous. He's not even playing in the pre-season and the whole pregame tonight was nothing but RG3 stuff. I think the cameras followed him everywhere. Good thing he didn't go into the bathroom stall or something.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            The problem I saw last night was it appeared that our O-line was creating zero running opportunities for our backs... Ballard and Brown just had nowhere to go, often getting hit as soon as they were handed the ball, or getting hit way behind the line of scrimmage. I actually like our entire group of RBs... hell, having Donald Brown as a third option means you're in a pretty good spot. But if our line doesn't open up any holes, it won't matter at all, and we'll be leaning on Luck all season long (which... isn't an entirely unpleasant thought, haha).
                            Exactly. Without your OL opening running lanes, it doesn't matter if you have the best RB in the league. Won't get you that far.

                            With that said, let me ***** about a certain guard still being in the team. Mr #75.... Yikes!
                            Never forget

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                              I agree with everything you say about Luck vs. RG3, KidMinny. To be fair though, Luck does have one of the greatest receivers of the era still playing at a high level. Being able to rely on Wayne last year was crucial to Luck's success, much like Manning was able to rely on Harrison. There were so many moments last season when Luck's mannerisms clearly said, "crap, where's Reggie?" I just hate that Wayne will be 35 this season. How awesome would it be if Wayne were 5 years younger? He is the ultimate professional. For a long time, I think he was underrated because people attributed his successes to Manning. Obviously having Peyton Manning throw you the ball for a decade helps your numbers, but Wayne is showing that his successes go far beyond Manning. The dude still managed 960 yards in 2011 with the likes of Collins, Painter, and Dan O. throwing him the skin. Then in 2012, he has one of the greatest seasons of his career with a rookie quarterback. This guy is just awesome.

                              This is Wayne's 13 season in Indy. Harrison and Manning both played 13 seasons with the Colts (though Manning was technically on the roster for 14 seasons). So Wayne will have a longer career in the horseshoe if he plays in 2014, as we all expect he will.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-20-2013, 08:17 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Preseason Game #2: Colts at Giants

                                I'm going to disagree here, I think RG3 is a pretty darn good QB. I thought he ran his offense very well last year (sometimes to the detriment of his body, which is on him and Shanahan to clean up), and he made some pretty sharp and accurate throws. I do think he benefited tremendously from a great running game and a defense that gave him a lot better field of play than Luck (Wilson had that advantage as well). But in terms of skill and knowledge, I think RG3 is quite good. I think we get cynical because we're all sick of seeing him on TV (which don't get me wrong, pisses me off everyday).

                                That said, I'd take Luck over any of them 10 times out of 10. I think when it's all said and done, Luck will easily be the most accomplished QB. I love watching him play.
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X