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

Luck so far

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

  • Re: Luck so far

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    RGIII, a rookie, followed up his concussion with a great game. He will have many more. Luck will have many more of the Jets type games but that is the difference between the two. The most NFL ready QB every has proven to be mediocre at best and RGIII is a superstar already.... You should have heard the fans here at a restaurant in Washington talking about him today. They are predicting a pro bowl (if they still have it) appearance by him this year. I don't think anyone is talking about Luck in those terms. I didn't like the pick before they made, less after they made it and I have hated it ever since I have watched him struggle.....
    You must have hated watching rookie Peyton Manning. Luck is almost identical to rookie Peyton, though he will likely end up with more wins.

    Were you really this hard on Manning when he was a rookie? I seriously doubt it.

    Comment


    • Re: Luck so far

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      You think Luck runs that huddle? Ha!!!
      Oh man, you seriously have no clue:

      http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nf...luck-just-fine

      Indianapolis Colts interim coach and offensive coordinator Bruce Arians said Monday that around 80 percent of the Colts' plays Sunday against the Packers were run out of a no-huddle offense. That number is pretty significant with rookie Andrew Luck at the helm, especially since Arians didn't throw the no-huddle offense at Peyton Manning until Manning's second year in the league.
      "We didn't attempt no-huddle the first year," Arians said, referring to Manning's first year. "We did a lot of check with mes, and gave him two or three options, but not at the line, rolling in a no-huddle situation until the second year. It's something he's been wanting to do. I felt the rest of the guys were more than capable now. We practiced it for four or five weeks. It was time to try it."
      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: Luck so far

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        Why would a player like RGIII with even less football experience look so much better than Luck so far? The reason is that both RGIII and Peyton are far better players than Luck is right now. I think that will not change much in the coming years. Some of you think he will get much better and be as good as RGIII and Peyton. I just don't see that......
        He doesn't look better than RG3. He only looks better to little kids who get fired up about 76-yard touchdown runs. Rg3 has more rushing touchdowns than passing touchdowns. All that tells me is that 1) they're designing a bunch of simple run plays for him, and that 2) he's falling back on the run when he's not getting through his reads. What would you do if you wre getting confused in your check-downs? If you were fast, you'd take off running. In other words its "Okay I hiked the ball, and.... dammit not real sure what to do, gonna take off and just wing it." It's not a good sign for the growth of a passer. The knowledgeable fans out there who recognize great football play in the style of Manning are all-eyes on Andrew Luck right now.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-15-2012, 02:37 PM.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Luck so far

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Oh man, you seriously have no clue:

          http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nf...luck-just-fine
          It is good to know that you believe all of the the team tells you. Not that Irsay or company would ever lie about anything.....

          Comment


          • Re: Luck so far

            Oh good grief.
            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: Luck so far

              I am completely happy with Luck's progression.

              For a rookie QB that has no running game nor anything that resembles competent pass protection what he has done is really great. He has things to work on, but when we can get him a consistent running threat and some protection his accuracy should go up especially on the long ball.

              The guy is all ready running the no huddle and has shown the ability to lead the team down the field when it matters.

              The sky is the limit for this guy.

              Comment


              • Re: Luck so far

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                No rookie is running the no huddle, except Luck. Because generally they can't. Including RG3.
                That's all well and good, but it's not like he's running it extremely well. 53% completion percentage, 9 TO's, 21st ranking in PPG. It's impressive that we can run the no huddle, but if it's not effective nor efficient then what's it matter.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck so far

                  Luck is your typical rookie--very high ups, and very low downs.

                  He has the potential to be a great player, and really just needs to work on consistency and poise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                    I am completely happy with Luck's progression.

                    For a rookie QB that has no running game nor anything that resembles competent pass protection what he has done is really great. He has things to work on, but when we can get him a consistent running threat and some protection his accuracy should go up especially on the long ball.

                    The guy is all ready running the no huddle and has shown the ability to lead the team down the field when it matters.

                    The sky is the limit for this guy.
                    There are three rookie QBs rated ahead of Luck and one is right behind him and playing the Colts this weekend and he could pass Luck with a big day. This isn't what you expect from the most overhyped rookie in NFL history who was supposed to be the most "pro ready" QB in the draft. Just think, we could have had Wilson from Seattle, a whole boat load of picks and we could have kept Peyton Manning and been a winning team for the next four to five years with our future QB on the roster. I don't see the sky as the limit for Luck, I think that he has already show that his limit is not very high at all. Who cares that he runs the no huddle when he can barely complete 50% of his passes and his yards look good because he chucks it a lot. Sorry, I would have kept the best QB of his era, taken the picks, developed a very good QB and over ten years, I would be way ahead of where the Colts are and are going to be.......

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Luck is your typical rookie--very high ups, and very low downs.

                      He has the potential to be a great player, and really just needs to work on consistency and poise.
                      There are three rookie QBs rated ahead of him that also have the potential to be great players and we could have had one of them and the biggest haul of high draft picks in history to put a team around him and we could have kept Peyton Manning who wanted to finish his career here and been winners for the next few years while that QB develops..... There was your recipe for ultimate success not a purge that is going to get you highly overrated QB ruined or eventually injured because he has no protection. Note, that I did not say that I want that to happen, I just know that eventually it will happen when you get punished like he has been....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        That's all well and good, but it's not like he's running it extremely well. 53% completion percentage, 9 TO's, 21st ranking in PPG. It's impressive that we can run the no huddle, but if it's not effective nor efficient then what's it matter.
                        ITs impressive since he has done it when it actually should be done which is when the game is on the line. Luck hasn't been running the no huddle a lot in all the games and actually Ryan Tannehill runs it more than any rookie QB.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck so far

                          I don't think Manning really wanted to finish his career here. Not once last year was over. Liked to have? Yeah, maybe...sure.... Realized the market and better teams were out there for him? Certainly.

                          The Colts had one way to get Manning back IMHO- Pick up the option on his contract. He wasn't going to renegotiate IMHO and I think Irsay would've done almost anything to not let Manning walk. But he couldn't mortgage the future for it.
                          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: Luck so far

                            I felt my brain cells committing suicide while reading this.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck so far

                              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                              I felt my brain cells committing suicide while reading this.
                              Reading what?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck so far

                                For a rookie QB, Luck looks pretty good. He does run the 'slow' no-huddle well. No question about that. He has a nice understanding of the playbook and what the Colts want to do. But he does have the usual rookie issues with the speed of the NFL game. In time that should go away, but it just takes game play to for the brain to catch up to the confusion on the field and begin to sort it out quickly enough.

                                A couple of examples of what I'm talking about. In the pocket, Luck tends to pull the ball down and run too quickly or hold on the the ball too long. That ability to judge how long he has to make his decisions is still in the learning phase. Nothing wrong with that, as long as he gets better at some point.

                                Also, his throws tend to be late and behind the receiver. IMO, that indicates he has to see the opening before he is able to throw to it. He hasn't learned to throw to where the opening is going to be. He lacks that anticipation that veteran QB's have. Again, nothing unusual about that with a rookie. As long as it improves.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X