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

    I think the bills defense was really really good. On top of that, they had a really good day. Even when Luck had time to throw, our receivers were blanketed or got hit immediately.

    I think we should have put Dorsett in earlier; I don't think they could have pressure us as well with both TY and Dorsett in there and maybe he would have got his jitters out with a dropped pass rather than 2 muffed punts.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Last off-season, we sent private jets to get Frank Gore and Andre Johnson, then spent a first rounder on a WR. That shows where our main priorities are. We are obsessed with getting the famous skill players who get the statistics. Our first priority is not beefing up our lines to become a more physically intimidating team. We don't push anyone around or strike any fear whatsoever.

      I swear it seems like we telegraph what we're going to do on offense more than any other team in the NFL. It's so painfully obvious when we're going to pass and when we're going to run. There's no creativity whatsoever with our plays.

      Why do we have no quick passes to counter the blitz? Again, our coaches are just way over their heads.

      Like I said earlier in the game thread, our AFC title game appearance made it easy to forget that this team generally looked pretty poor last season against quality opponents. In the playoffs, we lucked out by playing the pathetic Bengals and a Denver team with a hobbled and horrible Peyton, then got slaughtered when we played a real team in New England.

      I'm not a big fan of Grigson or Pagano right now, but I'd dump Grigson first. His good moves since 2012 have been so few and far between. Hasn't done anything to make this a more physically imposing team. Pagano deserves a lot of blame too for this team looking so ill-prepared. For weeks, Rex Ryan has been treating this game like it was the freaking Super Bowl and his team's performance showed it.
      The frustrating parts are the ones that keep repeating year after year.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

        I do believe the team will bounce back in a major way this next week. I want to see a lot more Varga and I think Dorsett will do well receiving. Johnson will look a lot better on non slippery and dry turf. The defensive line play was not bad except for a couple bad running plays.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Last off-season, we sent private jets to get Frank Gore and Andre Johnson, then spent a first rounder on a WR. That shows where our main priorities are. We are obsessed with getting the famous skill players who get the statistics. Our first priority is not beefing up our lines to become a more physically intimidating team. We don't push anyone around or strike any fear whatsoever.

          I swear it seems like we telegraph what we're going to do on offense more than any other team in the NFL. It's so painfully obvious when we're going to pass and when we're going to run. There's no creativity whatsoever with our plays.

          Why do we have no quick passes to counter the blitz? Again, our coaches are just way over their heads.

          Like I said earlier in the game thread, our AFC title game appearance made it easy to forget that this team generally looked pretty poor last season against quality opponents. In the playoffs, we lucked out by playing the pathetic Bengals and a Denver team with a hobbled and horrible Peyton, then got slaughtered when we played a real team in New England.

          I'm not a big fan of Grigson or Pagano right now, but I'd dump Grigson first. His good moves since 2012 have been so few and far between. Hasn't done anything to make this a more physically imposing team. Pagano deserves a lot of blame too for this team looking so ill-prepared. For weeks, Rex Ryan has been treating this game like it was the freaking Super Bowl and his team's performance showed it.
          With a team that blitzes that heavily and with that many players you should run a bunch of short pass plays, running plays and screens. The two screens they attempted would have gone for BIG yardage except Luck failed on both passes. If a run breaks through the blitz that goes for big yards. And the short passing game. I bet NE executes those plays well next week.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

            Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
            Luck in the rain= TRASH

            17 run plays 49 pass plays

            Great gameplan Pep. Eat ****.
            We know Luck will be fine though. Can't say that about a lot of other aspects of the team.

            Comment


            • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              We know Luck will be fine though. Can't say that about a lot of other aspects of the team.

              At some point Luck's is gonna get hurt. This will now be 4 straight years of getting smacked in the mouth every week. At some point, probability is going to kick in and he's not going to get up from one of those hits. Getting a serviceable line, isn't just good for the run game, it's also an investment to protect your money maker.

              Watching the same crap year after year is really starting to get old. It doesn't take a football savant to figure out that good line play is pretty crucial to all aspects of the game.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                Originally posted by owl View Post
                I do believe the team will bounce back in a major way this next week. I want to see a lot more Varga and I think Dorsett will do well receiving. Johnson will look a lot better on non slippery and dry turf. The defensive line play was not bad except for a couple bad running plays.
                We better be ready next week and actually treat it as if it's regular season game instead of pre-season game. The Jets looked pretty good yesterday, though they were playing the miserable Browns. We will obviously have the crowd in our favor unlike yesterday, but the Jets are a team that will want to smack us in the mouth. If we can't hit back, then we will find ourselves in a tough game.

                Comment


                • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                  Pagano's cancer leading to Arians becoming head coach, leading to Arians getting a HC job of his own elsewhere, probably hurt the progression of this team as much as anything.

                  I think Pagano and Arians would've made a much better duo than Pagano and Pep.
                  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: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    We better be ready next week and actually treat it as if it's regular season game instead of pre-season game. The Jets looked pretty good yesterday, though they were playing the miserable Browns. We will obviously have the crowd in our favor unlike yesterday, but the Jets are a team that will want to smack us in the mouth. If we can't hit back, then we will find ourselves in a tough game.
                    The amount of games we have looked unprepared is really glaring. We don't lose them all and in fact seem to make decent halftime adjustments when we are still in striking range. Which makes it even more confounding trying to figure out how we could be so ill prepared in the first place. But winning itself doesn't erase the problem of looking unprepared to start the game. Of course it's one thing figuring out how an opponent will play you 5 days out and how certain players will be used, and it's another actually living it and adjusting to it. So I guess that could be some of it. But being able to adjust is cold comfort compared to just being prepared more times than not in the first place. I wonder what the number of games is that we've simply not looked ready for the first half?
                    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: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                      Is it really being unprepared though? Probably a fine line between being unprepared for what you're facing, and simply not being capable to handle what your facing.
                      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
                        Is it really being unprepared though? Probably a fine line between being unprepared for what you're facing, and simply not being capable to handle what your facing.
                        I think it's probably both. Being better would probably allow for a better margin of error and ability to adapt on the field.
                        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: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                          I'm so disgusted this morning.

                          I don't know which part pissed me off more.

                          Our new, old wide receiver disappearing for most of the game.

                          Our new, old running back who is supposed to be on a pitch count cramping up after only 5 carries.

                          Our first round pick wide receiver muffing not one, but two punts.

                          No it's easy.

                          What pissed me off the most was the continued refusal to upgrade our **** poor offensive line and watching our QB get pressured to hell and back. It is completely insane. This season, regardless of the results, seems like a countdown to Grigson being replaced. There is no way this team can win a Super Bowl, zero. The offensive line simply cannot protect Luck. Any sort of blitz on the Colts is a nearly guaranteed hit on our QB and in year 4 of this, it is just asinine to still be staring at the exact same problem we've had since year 1. Meanwhile, I'm supposed to get excited about a guy who can't even catch a wide open 2 point conversion or a running back who can't even handle 5 carries in week 1 before cramping up.


                          Oh, and were our linebackers even playing yesterday? Because I can't remember them making even one tackle.
                          Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-14-2015, 11:55 AM.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                            Luck was not good, but the one consistent the early Peyton teams always had, were great offensive lines that helped Peyton and the young weapons around him find their footing every game. Luck has never had that luxury and in year 4 of Luck's growth it is inexcusable that we haven't done it. Yes, Luck is good enough, athletic enough, and strong enough that he often turns this pumpkin of an O-line into a stage coach, but we NEVER forced Peyton play behind an O-line this bad for even 2 years, let alone 4. Grigson has flat our refused to upgrade the center position or the guards. And when he does attempt to upgrade the guard (Herremans), he does so by moving a solid young guy who looked good at that position (Mewhort) to tackle a position he is not familiar with. It's completely *** backwards. Mewhort and Castonzo were the two bright spots of the o-line last season, we should have left Mewhort where he was and tried to get a tackle next to him and an upgrade at center.

                            Compare how much time Luck had to Taylor. Taylor could have knit a freaking scarf on the TD pass to Harvin.

                            What killed our offense repeatedly? Holding penalties and at least 2 false starts. The issue is so obvious it is painful that it went unaddressed for yet another offseason.
                            Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-14-2015, 11:57 AM.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                              Oh and finally, we didn't win a single 50-50 ball all day. Not a single one. Our wide receivers got punked by that secondary.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                haven't heard Sammy Watkins's name once, so Vontae's taking care of that at least
                                Maybe the lone bright spot from yesterday? Vontae was incredible simply by me never seeing Vontae. Taylor threw at him twice and both times were incomplete. Would be nice to have more guys like him who just do exactly that every week. Vontae is great simply because he almost never makes a mistake.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X