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

    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    It was interesting hearing a couple national podcasts discuss the game from Sunday (Grantland NFL Podcast and Football Today from ESPN to be exact).

    One focused on the defensive masterpiece that the Bills put together. The main criticism they had of the Colts was their gameplan on the defensive side of the ball, that they weren't more aggressive at stopping the simple game script the Bills had.

    The other specifically mentioned that they would assume before the game that the Colts offensive line and defense would be the reasons they would potentially lose the game. But they thought that on Sunday the offensive line wasn't bad, and that it was Luck and the other skill position players who really let the team down.

    Luck was hit 5 times in that game. If that was average for the season, he would lead the league again in that department.


    Comment


    • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

      Anybody who has even remotely watched the Colts the last few years knows that Luck is a better QB when he's rolling out or on the run and has to make something happen. So why do we never take advantage of this purposely?(you can guarantee Arians would be) Especially with a defense like Buffalo. Rolling him out or bootleg plays would buy another second or two with Luck's mobility or if he gets a couple big runs it would make the defense thing twice about sending the pressure. Just another example of why our current coaching staff is not going to cut it. No adjustments whatsoever when things start going south.

      Comment


      • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Luck was hit 5 times in that game. If that was average for the season, he would lead the league again in that department.
        Sure. But the context of the opponent matters quite a bit in that case. The Colts were facing the team with the most sacks in football last year without blitzing very much, and then they have added one of the best defensive coaches in football who likes to dial up even more pressure by blitzing frequently. You would project any team's QB to get hit more than normal in that situation.

        Comment


        • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
          It was interesting hearing a couple national podcasts discuss the game from Sunday (Grantland NFL Podcast and Football Today from ESPN to be exact).

          One focused on the defensive masterpiece that the Bills put together. The main criticism they had of the Colts was their gameplan on the defensive side of the ball, that they weren't more aggressive at stopping the simple game script the Bills had.

          The other specifically mentioned that they would assume before the game that the Colts offensive line and defense would be the reasons they would potentially lose the game. But they thought that on Sunday the offensive line wasn't bad, and that it was Luck and the other skill position players who really let the team down.
          Was the phrasing more like "wasn't as bad as expected?" That's the only way that fits with what happened.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

            Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
            Sure. But the context of the opponent matters quite a bit in that case. The Colts were facing the team with the most sacks in football last year without blitzing very much, and then they have added one of the best defensive coaches in football who likes to dial up even more pressure by blitzing frequently. You would project any team's QB to get hit more than normal in that situation.
            Yeah, but we're not talking about any QB, we're talking about the QB who has already spent three straight seasons being the most hit QB in football and is the only guy who the franchise can really rely on for the next decade. Our offensive line should be one of the best in football, instead it is at best average (and I'm being REALLY kind I think)


            Comment


            • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Yeah, but we're not talking about any QB, we're talking about the QB who has already spent three straight seasons being the most hit QB in football and is the only guy who the franchise can really rely on for the next decade. Our offensive line should be one of the best in football, instead it is at best average (and I'm being REALLY kind I think)
              I don't disagree with you. Although I'm guessing even if we jury rigged the last 3 years and made perfect decisions, the Colts couldn't have built one of the best lines in football. Too few quality linemen in FA, and most of the impact linemen go earlier in the draft than the Colts have picked. Add in the Colts only had 1 lineman to start off the process, and that's a problem. But the Colts still could have done better than they have, and they've definitely chased skill positions far too much at the expense of other positions. I would agree with you that average is generous. I'd probably put them in the 22nd to 25th best range (a little better pass blocking than run blocking).

              Since, I think it was based mostly on expectations. I think he thought they were better than usual, especially with the amount of blitzes they faced. But I'm not sure about that.

              It seems like there's a split out there on the offensive line. For example, football outsiders seems to say they played pretty badly:

              http://www.footballoutsiders.com/any...lls-over-colts

              But I looked at the pff grades, and 3 of their best 5 grades of the day went to Colts offensive linemen, and they said they did a nice job holding up:

              https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...nse-struggles/

              Comment


              • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                Anybody who has even remotely watched the Colts the last few years knows that Luck is a better QB when he's rolling out or on the run and has to make something happen. So why do we never take advantage of this purposely?(you can guarantee Arians would be) Especially with a defense like Buffalo. Rolling him out or bootleg plays would buy another second or two with Luck's mobility or if he gets a couple big runs it would make the defense thing twice about sending the pressure. Just another example of why our current coaching staff is not going to cut it. No adjustments whatsoever when things start going south.
                Frankly I think we need to give up protecting Luck in the pocket on every down. We can't protect him in the pocket period. So yes run some bootlegs. Its not rocket science.

                Comment


                • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                  Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                  Frankly I think we need to give up protecting Luck in the pocket on every down. We can't protect him in the pocket period. So yes run some bootlegs. Its not rocket science.
                  Creates a bigger problem for the line if he is doing that all the time. Occasionally would be ok.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Are you talking about the same Jim Irsay who said this about Peyton Manning February 2012?

                    Asked once again about Manning's future on Tuesday by Mike Chappell of the Indianapolis Star, Irsay revealed a bit more of his hand going forward.

                    "We can make it work if he wants to be here,'' Irsay said. "We'd be excited to have him back and finish his career with us.
                    "I want him to be able to make the choice. We would love to have him back here if he can get healthy and we can look at doing a contract that reflects the uncertainty of the . . . healing process with the regeneration of the nerve.''


                    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...051955332.html

                    Irsay is a politician just like anyone else in this business. He says what's best for him and the organization. There's nothing wrong with that because everyone else does it too, but Irsay has a history of saying things that can't completely be taken at face value. The last thing that Irsay's going to do when the team is trying to win games is hang Pagano and/or Grigson out to dry.

                    Mike Florio is one of the most respected insiders in the business and reported that Pagano's future in Indy is in doubt, and that there is a rift between Grigs and Pags. I'm inclined to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire, ESPECIALLY considering that Grigson's miserable history of wasting first round draft picks can't be pleasing to a coach that came from a Baltimore Ravens organization which built teams that smacked around their opponents. I wouldn't be too happy either if I was Pagano.

                    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...around-pagano/
                    Ya, at the time he said that, he likely meant it. Not a great quote to make a point with.
                    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

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Ya, at the time he said that, he likely meant it. Not a great quote to make a point with.

                      It's actually the perfect quote to make my point with. He in no way shape or form meant it. It was all about trying to win a political PR battle with Peyton.

                      Even in January 2012, a month before the above February quote that I pasted, Irsay was admitting that they were taking RG3 or Luck (i.e. Luck):

                      “With Griffin and Luck and the way it’s shaping up at the top of the draft — could very likely go one and two like with Peyton and Ryan Leaf,” Irsay said. “It’s most likely one of those quarterbacks that you really feel is the best player in the draft, and where we’re at moving forward you can’t pass that up. I don’t think anyone would expect that.”

                      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...on-is-healthy/

                      That was his blatant admission that Peyton was not coming back. There was no way in hell that Peyton and Luck could have worked on the same roster. That would have been a complete disaster for all involved, and Irsay certainly knew that as well as anyone. By the time he was saying that they could "make it work" in February, it was all about trying to win a back and forth PR war with Peyton. Irsay knew that some fans would initially be upset when Peyton left, so he wanted to give the illusion that they would keep Peyton if the price was right. Then when they inevitably couldn't reach a resolution (since Irsay was taking Andrew Luck from Day 1), Irsay could make it look like that they wanted to keep Peyton but Peyton wasn't willing to redo his contract.

                      Irsay knew he was taking Andrew Luck the moment the Colts got that number 1 pick, which also meant he knew there was no way in hell Peyton would ever play another down for the Colts. It was just tough for both sides to rip the band aid off since they had so much successful history together. He was unquestionably full of crap in that February 2012 quote I posted when he said "we can make it work". That was pure BS.

                      I think that Irsay has by and large been a great owner, but he is just as likely to spew BS as anyone else.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Game Thread: Colts @ Bills

                        Alright, whatever.
                        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

                        Working...
                        X