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 Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

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

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    No thanks mostly because he's an aging RB and not really sure what he has left.
    He is going to try baseball... where he can be a switch hitter.....
    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: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      To all the Kravitz haters.....Doesn't look like he made it up

      Apparently, "deflategate" was triggered by D'Qwell Jackson's interception......

      http://deadspin.com/reports-dqwell-j...-in-1680569440
      Last edited by Mr_Smith; 01-20-2015, 10:37 AM.
      Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Grigs has made mistakes, but that team had more than enough tools to respectfully compete in Foxboro. The Pats are obviously better than the Colts - but no way in hell should they be 45-7 better. That was just an inexcusable embarrassment from a coaching, playing, and execution standpoint. We just had a deer in the headlights look and didn't have any fight at all. I don't get it. The Cribbs fumble reminded me of Denver's botched snap in the Super Bowl last year. A horrible mistake that completely shook up the confidence of the team.

        What I really don't get is why we played so inexcusably putrid in the second half. We should have been feeling good at halftime to only be down 17-7. Our coaching staff should have seen what their gameplan was and adjusted. I didn't expect to win this game, but to be no more competitive than the Jaguars would have been there is pretty bad. The Denver win will forever be awesome, but to be honest, that game was mostly about the wounded ducks that Peyton was serving, which gave our DB's plenty of time to disrupt the timing with their receivers.

        Great season, but the only way we're getting to a Super Bowl anytime soon is if Baltimore can take NE out before we have to play them. I respect the Ravens because they are the only team that has the stones to believe that they can win in Foxboro. So much of this game is about confidence. The Colts clearly have no confidence when they play the Pats and have body language that makes it seem like they expect to lose.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-20-2015, 11:18 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

          Talent aside, this team makes a LOT of mistakes. That's typically on the coaching.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

            The Colts don't have the tools to compete against New England, but I think it's only partially Grigson's fault. The Patriots are an awful matchup with the Colts.

            The Colts defense is predicated on their corners. They dare teams to go down the field on them. Teams have to mostly rely on other guys to beat them. That plays right into the Patriots hands. They are both used to going to all sorts of players, and they love to stretch the field horizonally rather than vertically and beat you in the vacated space in the middle of the field. In the running game, the Patriots continued to run those 6 offensive linemen looks, and with Gronkowski also being an excellent blocker that's 7. The Colts both don't have the beef to deal with that, and also they have some undisciplined players in key positions (Newsome and Landry are good examples of this). The Patriots are able to take out the LB's who are pretty good better than most teams and expose the undisciplined players.

            On the offensive side, the Colts probably should have gone to their tight ends more. But by doubling Hilton, Revis is tons better than Moncrief, and you can stick anybody on Wayne with no problem, the Colts just don't have great weapons out there right now. It was way too easy for the Patriots defense, especially with the rain slowing down the vertical passing game.

            In descending order of importance, the Patriots are better than the Colts, they are a particularly awful matchup with the Colts, and rain hurt what the Colts like to do more than the Patriots. That's a pretty awful combination. I don't think the Colts lose 45-7 very often even with that combination, but they would need everything to go right to have much of a chance.

            As for the deflate thing, that timeline posted above would make sense for when there was a complaint. Wasn't it right after halftime when there was a delay before a new ball was put into play? The announcers at the game speculated it was because there was not a non-kicking ball ready for play, but there never was a reason why that was. Something related to this complaint would seem to be the reason why.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              "You can thank D'Qwell Jackson for sparking Deflate-gate.

              According to Bob Glauber of Newsday, the investigation into whether the Patriots intentionally deflated the footballs in play in Saturday’s AFC Championship game began when Jackson intercpted a Tom Brady pass in the second quarter.

              Given that each team provides a dozen balls to game officials to use when it is on offense
              , the Colts might not have known anything was different about New England’s barring the turnover. Ostensibly, a slightly deflated ball would be easier to grip and throw in rainy, windy conditions, as they were playing in Sunday night.


              When Jackson returned to the sidelines after his pick, he gave it to a member of the Colts equipment staff, who noticed it felt under-inflated.


              The equipment man told coach Chuck Pagano, who relayed the information to General Manager Ryan Grigson, who contacted NFL director of football operations
              Mike Kensil, who told the officials on the field at halftime."


              http://profootballta...s-interception/

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                The biggest problem against teams like the Patriots is that none of our linebackers know what to do when defending the pass.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  The Colts don't have the tools to compete against New England, but I think it's only partially Grigson's fault. The Patriots are an awful matchup with the Colts.

                  The Colts defense is predicated on their corners. They dare teams to go down the field on them. Teams have to mostly rely on other guys to beat them. That plays right into the Patriots hands. They are both used to going to all sorts of players, and they love to stretch the field horizonally rather than vertically and beat you in the vacated space in the middle of the field. In the running game, the Patriots continued to run those 6 offensive linemen looks, and with Gronkowski also being an excellent blocker that's 7. The Colts both don't have the beef to deal with that, and also they have some undisciplined players in key positions (Newsome and Landry are good examples of this). The Patriots are able to take out the LB's who are pretty good better than most teams and expose the undisciplined players.

                  On the offensive side, the Colts probably should have gone to their tight ends more. But by doubling Hilton, Revis is tons better than Moncrief, and you can stick anybody on Wayne with no problem, the Colts just don't have great weapons out there right now. It was way too easy for the Patriots defense, especially with the rain slowing down the vertical passing game.

                  In descending order of importance, the Patriots are better than the Colts, they are a particularly awful matchup with the Colts, and rain hurt what the Colts like to do more than the Patriots. That's a pretty awful combination. I don't think the Colts lose 45-7 very often even with that combination, but they would need everything to go right to have much of a chance.

                  As for the deflate thing, that timeline posted above would make sense for when there was a complaint. Wasn't it right after halftime when there was a delay before a new ball was put into play? The announcers at the game speculated it was because there was not a non-kicking ball ready for play, but there never was a reason why that was. Something related to this complaint would seem to be the reason why.

                  Yeah, great point about the middle of the defense. It was clear at the start of the season that the middle of the defense would be trouble.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    If we continue our disturbing trend of starting bums all year, we will not get past NE. Richardson, Werner, and Nicks were pretty much garbage the entire year, yet coaches continued playing them. Moncrief, Newsome, and Herron should have been our guys the entire season
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Yeah, great point about the middle of the defense. It was clear at the start of the season that the middle of the defense would be trouble.
                      Grigson continues to over pay for mediocre players in the front 7. Jackson, Jones, Walden, RJF are all over paid Grigson signings. These guys don't scare anybody
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Grigson continues to over pay for mediocre players in the front 7. Jackson, Jones, Walden, RJF are all over paid Grigson signings. These guys don't scare anybody
                        That's kind of how it goes in free agency though. Grigson still isn't working from a fair deck yet. The backbone of this team should be players in the prime of their career, homegrown players in year 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The Colts don't have many of those. Here are the Colts players (unless I'm missing someone) who were on the roster in 2011: Castanzo, Reitz, Wayne, Mathis, Vinatieri, McAfee. That's not much of a base to build off of.

                        Grigson has had cap space and playing time to offer, but the truly great players tend to stay with their own teams. The decent to good players get overpaid, and then there are some bargains to be found. Grigson found one of them (Freeman). Maybe he should have found one more like that over three years, but they aren't exactly plentiful. And he had the 1 draft to pick at the top of the draft, and then after that has been picking fairly low.

                        For comparison, here are the Patriots players who were on their 2011 roster: Aiken, Arrington, Brady, Cannon, Chung, Connoly, Edelman, Gostkowski, Gronkowski, Mayo, McCourty, Ninkovich, Ridley, Slater, Solder, Vereen, Vollmer, Wendell, Wilfork. There's no shock the Patriots are deeper and have more experience than what the Colts have been able to surround Luck with so far.

                        I don't agree with several of Grigson's moves, but it's hard to judge him quite yet. The players you mentioned are mostly stopgaps until the Colts can develop some more talent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Just an outsiders perspective, but I think everyone overpay in free agency. Hence why it is hard to build a team soley with free agents (Just ask Dan Snyder).

                          With that said, free agents can be a good compliment to a good draft class.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                            Aaron Rodgers has the Green Bay ball boy overinflate footballs, hoping that the refs won't notice. He likes them pumped up tight.

                            http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...-football-talk


                            From an exchange on the CBS broadcast of the New England Patriots' road game against the Green Bay Packers on Nov. 30. Early in the third quarter, Jim Nantz and Phil Simms had the following discussion on the broadcast:


                            Nantz: We talked to [Aaron] Rodgers about 'How do you like your footballs?' Because, you know, you can rub them up before the game. [Phil], you really kind of created that for everybody else in the league.

                            Simms: I don't know if I did, because the quarterbacks got tired of them complaining. But he said something [that] was unique: 'I like to push the limit to how much air we can put in the football, even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take air out of it.' Because he thinks it's easier for him to grip. He likes them tight. Of course, he's got very big hands and you can tell that by watching him play.


                            Nantz: You've never heard of a guy really desiring a football to be fat and overinflated before, have you?


                            Simms: Everybody (usually) wants it smaller and soft, so they can dig their fingers into. He's such a feel thrower. You can tell. The one touchdown he threw down the field to the tight end is such feel; then he flicks it. That shows you he just has great control of it, with his fingers and hand.


                            Nantz: He said, 'God gave me big hands and a strong grip.'


                            Simms: You know, the officials do check those footballs and sometimes maybe even (he will) get lucky and (they will) put an extra half pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.


                            ---------------------
                            Kind of interesting. No uproar there, strangely.


                            Of course a ball or two could lose pressure during the game for many reasons. Cooling from 70 degrees (equipment room 2.5 hrs before the game) to 45 degrees (2nd half temperature) will lower psi by at least 0.5 or so. They are supposed to be 12.5-13.5 psi. Footballs leak sometimes too. That is why they have 12 of them to use. One is bad, they throw it out.


                            We will find out soon.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              You can't start an investigation based off of what someone claims is their preference. There is actual physical evidence with the respect to what the Patriots are accused of doing.


                              If a member of the opposing team claimed that an intercepted pass was over inflated and it was reported to the NFL an investigation would have occurred.

                              This isn't a witch hunt despite what the Patriots kool-aid drinkers believe. Time to face reality: Belichick is an arrogant POS that likes to run up the score, make petty statements, and doesn't care about breaking the rules. Apparently that is A-OK in Patsyland but the rest of the country despises New England and does not envy the way they conduct themselves.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                                Actually, IS there confirmation that a ball was underinflated? All I've seen is someone on the Colts' sidelines THOUGHT a ball was underinflated and brought it to the attention of higher ups. Then, apparently they looked into it. Once again, apparently, took it seriously enough that it caused the checking of a ball about to go into play. But nothing I've seen has said what was found out about any of the footballs. Sounds like they at least checked two of them.... the one the Colts intercepted and the one about to be put into play. And they could've checked more since it wouldn't have affected anything to be weighing the balls on the sideline that weren't currently in play.

                                So what did they find???
                                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

                                Working...
                                X