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

Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

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

  • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

    Luck has been the most hit QB in 4 years of playing pro football. It will likely be the same story again. Was he good yesterday? No, not really, but after 3 straight years of the same issue talking about one bad game from Luck as if it absolves this **** stain offensive line of blame is the same sort of logic that leads Grigson to drafting a TY Hilton clone in the first round.


    Comment


    • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Well we're not gonna have that this time. Rebuilds are risky business people.

      Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
      Replacing the coach and the GM is not a rebuild.


      Comment


      • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

        That's not what they said, they wanted to "blow it up".
        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: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

          I'm surprised by all the Luck criticism. Yeah he was horrible and our team got crushed.

          Peyton was horrible yesterday too, but Denver found a way to win.

          Good teams can cover up when their QB has a bad day. The Colts can't and that is a HUGE indictment on Pagano and Grigson at this point in the Luck era. It was acceptable in Luck's first 2 years, but by now? They should have put a team around him that can at least remain competitive when he is struggling. And they haven't.

          When Luck doesn't play a tremendous game, this team gets CRUSHED. The guy just turned 26, do you know how silly it is that we expect him to be perfect every single week? Even prime Peyton threw his share of picks and duck type balls. Brady has never been great every single week. QBs have their bad games. Good teams find ways around them. The Colts have nothing if Luck isn't an MVP candidate every single week and playing behind this offensive line makes that an extremely difficult task.


          Comment


          • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

            I still don't see how Luck's problems weren't directly a result of the shittiness of his blockers yesterday. Yeah, he was inaccurate. You know what happens when you have to rush your reads and get rid of the ball before you want to? Inaccuracy. A large difference between having time to make throws and missing them, and having to rush your throws and missing them. One is shouldered by the QB, the other is shouldered by his protection.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

              I am not trying to overreact to just this one game even though it still looks like we struggle in the areas that we were struggling in last year. It just leaves such a bad taste in your mouth when the biggest concern is protecting Luck and our defense, which directly lead to our destruction by the Pats. Only to come out week 1 and see the offensive line struggle again and the defense struggle to get any pressure on Taylor and still whiff on tackles.

              The thing that boggled my mind is why we completely abandon the run. Pagano, Irsay, Pep, and Grigs all blab on and on how they want to be a power run team, but yet at the first chance they get they completely abandoned the run. We dropped the run game in almost the first quarter and we were barely behind. I understood being a little pass happy in the second quarter being down 17-0, but in the first quarter there was zero reason to abandon the run game.

              I just do not get the bi-polar thinking. You say you want to be a power run game, but neglect the offensive line and stop running it at the very hint of trouble. It is like Pep panics or something and just starts calling pass after pass.

              Where was the pass rush yesterday? Trent Cole was brought in to help that pass rush, right? As Trader said Taylor could knitted a scarf back there on many plays. I just do not see how Mathis coming off 10 surgeries is going to improve that pass rush much. I hope he does, but I just find it hard to believe a 34 year old OLB coming off 10 surgical procedures is going to be much of an impact.

              I just hope they come prepared next week because the Jets are not going to be pushovers. Ivory is a good back and they still have a good defense.

              Comment


              • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                It's not an overreaction, IMO. The team will go somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4, they'll probably win the division and win the home playoff game. But expecting them to do more than that? I just don't see it. Not unless Luck plays out of his mind for 4 straight weeks of playoff football, which is just not something QBs typically do regardless of how great they are.


                Comment


                • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I'm surprised by all the Luck criticism. Yeah he was horrible and our team got crushed.

                  Peyton was horrible yesterday too, but Denver found a way to win.

                  Good teams can cover up when their QB has a bad day. The Colts can't and that is a HUGE indictment on Pagano and Grigson at this point in the Luck era. It was acceptable in Luck's first 2 years, but by now? They should have put a team around him that can at least remain competitive when he is struggling. And they haven't.

                  When Luck doesn't play a tremendous game, this team gets CRUSHED. The guy just turned 26, do you know how silly it is that we expect him to be perfect every single week? Even prime Peyton threw his share of picks and duck type balls. Brady has never been great every single week. QBs have their bad games. Good teams find ways around them. The Colts have nothing if Luck isn't an MVP candidate every single week and playing behind this offensive line makes that an extremely difficult task.
                  Which is the oddest thing given the rhetoric put out by Irsay even before we drafted Luck. Irsay made it clear that he wanted to build around Luck, but not be completely dependent on him playing perfect. That is what doomed Peyton's team because when we got to the playoffs the defenses got stiffer and when Peyton could not be perfect we were doomed. Yet, here we are four years after Luck was drafted and it seems like we are in the same boat. If Luck does not have a good game we are probably going to lose unless Luck pulls something out of his ***.

                  We cannot rely on our defense to keep us in the game like the Broncos did yesterday. We abandon the run at the first hint of trouble so Gore is not going to carry us because he will just not be used and our offensive line is just not dominate at all. We basically give Luck the ball and go say win us the game buddy.

                  I just wish I could hear what Irsay really thinks. How does he sit there and think this is what he had envisioned when drafting Luck and building around him. It is basically the same team as before that relies on their QB to play great to win.
                  Last edited by thewholefnshow31; 09-14-2015, 12:35 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                    Pep has been abandoning the run fast ever since he lost us the Philly game last year by running the ball like 40 times.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                      According to Stephen Holder, the lack of rushing attempts was due to Luck checking out of running plays and into passing ones.

                      There were other issues involving Luck, who finished 26 of 49 for 243 yards with two touchdowns and two interceptions. If you’re wondering why the Colts ran so many passing plays – at one point in the first half, the Colts had 14 straight dropbacks – Luck was at the center of that, too.

                      Like most NFL quarterbacks, he has the latitude to change the play at the line of scrimmage if the defensive alignment calls for it. Luck changed multiple calls from running plays to passing plays because of the defensive look. That helped make Gore a relative nonfactor despite his early success running the ball (13 yards in his first three carries).
                      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ions/72059840/
                      Last edited by Since86; 09-14-2015, 12:35 PM.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        According to Stephen Holder, the lack of rushing attempts was due to Luck checking out of running plays and into passing ones.


                        http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ions/72059840/

                        Which is probably due to him always having to put things on his back and get us the win.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          According to Stephen Holder, the lack of rushing attempts was due to Luck checking out of running plays and into passing ones.


                          http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ions/72059840/
                          Interesting. Luck didn't make it obvious that he was audibling that often.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                            I also find it funny we say Luck had a lot of time on the first thrown INT to Hilton, he had more time than usual, but the pocket was still collapsing, it is very rare, if almost unheard of for Luck to ever have a well formed pocket. You want to see an o-line who can make time for their QB? Watch the Cowboys o-line on the game winning play last night, their center had a poor snap that Romo bobbled, dropped and had to pick back up and they still held the pocket. Romo talked about how that faith in your line as a QB helps you in those moments and even joked about how he hasn't always had that in Dallas.
                            Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-14-2015, 01:07 PM.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              It's not an overreaction, IMO. The team will go somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4, they'll probably win the division and win the home playoff game. But expecting them to do more than that? I just don't see it. Not unless Luck plays out of his mind for 4 straight weeks of playoff football, which is just not something QBs typically do regardless of how great they are.
                              When Peyton finally suffered a serious injury and was out for a sustained period, the Colts were completely exposed as a team dependent on other worldly QB play to win games. Our roster around Manning was so inadequate in its own right that we went from a surefire playoff berth to literally the worst team in the NFL. Irsay seems to understand this and clean house, and the message sent is that the Colts will become a much more hard-nosed, balanced team. Four years later, we're still a QB injury away from being the worst team in football and we have the exact same roster vulnerabilities and weaknesses. It is so incredibly frustrating and almost makes me wonder if Irsay is interfering in personnel decisions. I have no reason to think so but he's the only constant here.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                I also find it funny we say Luck had a lot of time on the first throw to Hilton, he had more time than usual, but the pocket was still collapsing, it is very rare, if almost unheard of for Luck to ever have a well formed pocket. You want to see an o-line who can make time for their QB? Watch the Cowboys o-line on the game winning play last night, their center had a poor snap that Romo bobbled, dropped and had to pick back up and they still held the pocket. Romo talked about how that faith in your line as a QB helps you in those moments and even joked about how he hasn't always had that in Dallas.

                                Dallas drafted three O-Linemen with three out of their four first rounders from 2011-14.

                                Meanwhile, Grigson has used his firsts on Werner, T-Rich, and Dorsett (after the team led the league in passing touchdowns and had already added Andre Johnson).

                                Dallas committed to protecting Romo. The Colts haven't done that with Luck.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X