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

Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

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

  • #31
    Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I'll repost this as I edited it originally.
    If you look at the 2006 game logs, he still wasn't playing that great (in comparison to his 05 standards) even before the injury. And he was never great again even after he healed. Serviceable? Certainly, but not even close to what he was in 2005 or before.

    I think that Ray Rice will be very good again, but I doubt we see 09-12 production.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

      A player who was on pace for 1400 yards, which would have been top 7, is now serviceable.

      Maybe that explains some of this, expectations are just through the freaking roof.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        A player who was on pace for 1400 yards, which would have been top 7, is now serviceable.

        Maybe that explains some of this, expectations are just thew the freaking roof.

        In 2007 after he had a complete season to heal that foot injury, he only totaled 716 yards and could only handle about 16 attempts a game. This was just two years after an 1800 yard season. If that's not crumbling quickly, then I'd love to see what your standards are. Sounds like the only think that you would consider "crumbling" is if the player died.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          In 2007 after he had a complete season to heal that foot injury, he only totaled 716 yards and could only handle about 16 attempts a game. This was just two years after an 1800 yard season. If that's not crumbling quickly, then I'd love to see what your standards are. Sounds like the only think that you would consider "crumbling" is if the player died.
          Yep, that's exactly it. If you don't think averaging enough to be on pace for 1400 yards a season isn't crumbling, then you have to think that a player has to die in order to crumble. You got me.

          I addressed Shaun's later years already, noting that players usually start declining over a couple years, not going from almost 4.5 ypc almost 2ypc in a years time, like Ray Rice.. I'm waiting for an example, where a player's production was almost cut in half. Giving me an example of a season shortened by injury, which was being very productive, doesn't cut the mustard no matter how extreme you have to purposefully distrot what I'm saying.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Yep, that's exactly it. If you don't think averaging enough to be on pace for 1400 yards a season isn't crumbling, then you have to think that a player has to die in order to crumble. You got me.

            I addressed Shaun's later years already, noting that players usually start declining over a couple years, not going from almost 4.5 ypc almost 2ypc. I'm waiting for an example, like Ray Rice, where a player's production was almost cut in half. Giving me an example of a season shortened by injury, which was being very productive, doesn't cut the mustard no matter how extreme you have to purposefully distrot what I'm saying.
            Even if he was on pace to have 1400 yards in 2006, the fact remains that he did play 13 games in 2007, yet only totaled 716 yards because he could only handle about 16 carries per game. This was just 2 seasons after an 1800 yard season. He came back strong in 2006 after the injury, but the next year he couldn't handle a heavy workload. In 08 he only got 11 attempts and was completely finished. That's crumbling quickly anyway you slice it.

            You continue to harp on 2006 in which I just conceded that he did play well after healing from the injury, but ignore 2007 where he did play most of the season yet clearly didn't have the juice that he did just two years earlier.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-11-2013, 01:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Even if he was on pace to have 1400 yards in 2006, the fact remains that he did play 13 games in 2007, yet only totaled 716 yards because he could only handle about 16 carries per game. This was just 2 seasons after an 1800 yard season. He came back strong after 2006, but the next year he couldn't handle a heavy workload. In 08 he only got 11 attempts and was completely finished. That's crumbling quickly anyway you slice it.

              You continue to harp on 2006 in which I just conceded that he did play well after healing from the injury, but ignore 2007 where he did play most of the season yet clearly didn't have the juice that he did just two years earlier.
              Alexander was injured throughout 2007 as well.

              Ray Rice isn't injured. The only difference is that he has a new offensive line. That's what I'm going for. Players, who are healthy, that seemingly drop off the map. Is it them or is it a product of a new line? I'm trying to find good backs that overcome their crappy offensive line, and produce at a level that would be acceptable for Richardson.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                I just don't think it's too much to say that Richardson should get somewhat of a pass, until he gets a line that atleast can get him to the LOS. If they were getting a good push, opening up a few holes, and he was just flat out missing them and running into defenders, then I get it.

                But that's not what is happening. He's met in the backfield by atleast one defender on pretty much every play. I wish I was exaggerating, but unfortunately they're just that bad. I think we could put AP in the Colts backfield, and he'd look bad.

                EDIT:

                I understand saying that Grigson screwed up in wasting a first round pick. I don't think they'd use it for a OLinemen, but I understand it. I have no vested interest in Trent, outside of him being a Colt. I don't like Bama, I have no clue about him personally. The line is just so bad, that it's hard for me to see much that can be done in an area that's so dependent on the line.
                Last edited by Since86; 11-11-2013, 01:06 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Alexander was injured throughout 2007 as well.

                  Ray Rice isn't injured. The only difference is that he has a new offensive line. That's what I'm going for. Players, who are healthy, that seemingly drop off the map. Is it them or is it a product of a new line? I'm trying to find good backs that overcome their crappy offensive line, and produce at a level that would be acceptable for Richardson.
                  I thought he had hip injury or something earlier in the year? I have a hard time buying that the guy is 100%. Being an NFL running back is juts an assault on the body and this guy has been going full steam for four years in a brutal division. That's four games a season against Pitt and Cincy, plus they have always gone pretty deep in the playoffs.

                  I'm trying to think back to the San Francisco game in which Bradshaw shined. I swear he was able to make "something out of nothing" in a way that T-Rich hasn't in any of his seven games here. Did the O-Line just happen to play abnormally great in that one game? I need to go back and re-watch some highlights.

                  I'm not saying that everything is T-Rich's fault. And I'm certainly not giving up on him. But I am judging it from the POV that we did give up a first round pick for him. So far, it basically looks like you could throw someone off the street into that position and have similar results. I just don't see a running back who can create something out of nothing like others.

                  Our line was wretched last year too, wasn't it? Yet Vick Ballard still looked pretty damn solid.

                  I don't view it as an either/or thing. I think it's a combination of play calling, O-Line, and T-Rich.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Our line was wretched last year too, wasn't it? Yet Vick Ballard still looked pretty damn solid.
                    I don't remember this "power" running game at all last year. Every time Pep sends out the jumbo package, I want to tear my hair out. That's the main issue, for me. They have an awful running game to start with, and then they let everyone know when they're going to run, to top it off. Embarassing.

                    And Rice sat out wk 3, but he's said multiple times that he's been healthy.
                    Last edited by Since86; 11-11-2013, 01:22 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I don't remember this "power" running game at all last year. Every time Pep sends out the jumbo package, I want to tear my hair out.

                      And Rice sat out wk 3, but he's said multiple times that he's been healthy.

                      True, and that's just not adjusting to the personnel or circumstances. Trent definitely looks better when he gets the ball in space.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                        Originally posted by travmil View Post
                        I'm not saying it's a good situation and nobody here is. I think that SOME of the time he should be able to make something happen out of it regardless. Is he going to be consistently successful the way things are? Of course not, no RB could. But lots of running backs do continue to make plays in spite of bad lines in front of them. Some do it a lot. T-Rich never does it. To the point that we should just stop handing him the ball. But the Colts still do.
                        Spot on. Have read many Seattle fans who complain a lot about their OL yet they see Lynch makes a play or two. Richardson hasn't done that. On the other hand I doubt T-Rich is that good so no surprise. It's not like he has showed glimpses of a great talent, so you will always have hope he will come good.

                        However you look at it (either because he's not worth it or he's worth it but can't perform behind a bad OL), looks like a bad trade right now.
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                          Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                          Spot on. Have read many Seattle fans who complain a lot about their OL yet they see Lynch makes a play or two.
                          He wasn't making plays when they were trying to fill the gaps just a few weeks ago. As someone who has Lynch on my fantasy team, watching their Pro-Bowlers go down and Marshawn only getting 191yrds through weeks 6-8 was giving me lots of heartburn.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            He wasn't making plays when they were trying to fill the gaps just a few weeks ago. As someone who has Lynch on my fantasy team, watching their Pro-Bowlers go down and Marshawn only getting 191yrds through weeks 6-8 was giving me lots of heartburn.

                            Lol, do we have the same fantasy team or something? I have Lynch too. I know we've talked about having Hilton. And didn't you also mention having Julio Jones in the thread about his injury?

                            In a year where so many running backs have been complete fantasy flops, it's certainly nice to have Lynch.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              True, and that's just not adjusting to the personnel or circumstances. Trent definitely looks better when he gets the ball in space.
                              I agree with you both on these last two points.
                              ----
                              I understand the principle of having a system and driving it home in building years. Maybe we all got a little too high on whether this was a building year or a playoff run year.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Colts vs Rams Post Game Thread

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Lol, do we have the same fantasy team or something? I have Lynch too. I know we've talked about having Hilton. And didn't you also mention having Julio Jones in the thread about his injury?

                                In a year where so many running backs have been complete fantasy flops, it's certainly nice to have Lynch.
                                Yes. I also have Tom Brady, who has been a fantasy bust outside of last week.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X