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

Pep fired

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

  • #61
    Re: Pep fired

    I see Luck making bad decisions because he knows if he doesn't make something happen, they're gonna have short offensive possessions.

    Not deflecting blame away from Luck, he's still making crappy reads and forcing the issue, but it's not a guy who's just missing receivers on the other side of the field trying to fit the ball to one particular player or anything like that. (although he does have a tendency to stare down a receiver now and again)

    I think, and will continue to think until proven without a doubt otherwise, that we're seeing a collection of two major things, 1) offensive line is absolutely horrible and 2) play calling has been absolutely horrible. I think when you combine those two issues together, you find your QB in a position where he has to force things instead of having confidence he'll get another chance a few plays later.

    We've been complaining about how far downfield the plays have been going for a couple seasons now, and complaining about the lack of check downs. Sure that could be on Luck, but I think he's too smart to be so clueless that he has other options. Which makes me believe that Pep has tried being overly aggressive when he calls passing plays, and it's more of design rather than Luck not understanding what's needed.

    I think the proof is the difference in the play calling when Hasselbeck played. I thought Pep's play calling took into account the QBs physical limitations/line limitations, and tried getting into positions to succeed. It just is confusing to see the night and day difference in how the Colts looked/plays that were ran between the two QBs.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pep fired

      I really do think a lot of people need to take a step back and really think about what we have with Luck, me included. We had a decade+ of one of the 2 or 3 best QBs ever, a down year, and then got The Next One. Except he really doesn't seem to be, certainly not this year.

      Peyton made massive, gaping, talent holes if not disappear at least not matter. Luck can't do that. No one wants to talk about it but Luck's looking a helluva lot more like Jay Cutler and Matt Stafford than he is anything approaching Peyton.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pep fired

        Got a notification on my phone from BR (Bleacher Report) sources (that may well be BS sources), that Chudzinski is being evaluated as a potential new head coach.
        Never forget

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pep fired

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          I really do think a lot of people need to take a step back and really think about what we have with Luck, me included. We had a decade+ of one of the 2 or 3 best QBs ever, a down year, and then got The Next One. Except he really doesn't seem to be, certainly not this year.

          Peyton made massive, gaping, talent holes if not disappear at least not matter. Luck can't do that. No one wants to talk about it but Luck's looking a helluva lot more like Jay Cutler and Matt Stafford than he is anything approaching Peyton.
          But Peyton wasn't consistently the Peyton that we all cherish until year 6 of his career. Like Luck, he had a great start to his career and then hit a rut in year 4. He improved in year 5 under Dungy, but we still got smoked 41-0 in the playoffs. It wasn't until year 6 that he consistently became the Peyton that everyone remembers so fondly.

          Look, I don't think that Luck is going to go down as being as great of a quarterback as Manning because that would mean that he would have to be like a top 2 all time quarterback. Nevertheless, he had us in the AFCCG as a third year starter, whereas Peyton didn't even win a playoff game until year 6. It's not uncommon for good quarterbacks to hit a rut early in their career. Also, keep in mind that Peyton had Tom Moore for his entire career, in addition to superior receiving options. Luck had Wayne to start with, but he's long gone. Also, I don't know if TY is ever going to quite live up to expectations. Manning OTOH had an all-world Marvin Harrison with him for the first 9 years of his career, Edgerrin James, Wayne for a while, Saturday, and Tarik Glenn blocking his blind side for 9 years.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-04-2015, 02:28 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pep fired

            No one is saying Luck is playing great, so you can also move on from that point. This is a Pep thread, not a Luck Sucks thread. Of course Luck needs to pick it up. But that said, he's injured, which can certainly make a lot of his throws look like bad decisions, because he can't place the ball where is mind knows he needs to put it. A lot of his throws are floating and behind. He can't put as much on the ball as usual. You can see where he *intended* to put it, but it got nowhere near. I mostly think he's just injured whereas Pep was the one making most of the bad decisions.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-04-2015, 02:34 PM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pep fired

              Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
              Got a notification on my phone from BR (Bleacher Report) sources (that may well be BS sources), that Chudzinski is being evaluated as a potential new head coach.
              Irsay would no longer be fit to own an NFL team if he gave the coaching job to Chudzinski.

              The Colts have prestige, history, money, Andrew Luck, and a virtually guaranteed playoff spot in the AFC South. If Irsay doesn't leverage that into a top-notch head coaching hire, then Irsay is no longer fit to own the team.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pep fired

                No one knows what Luck can throw better than Luck, whatever his physical status is

                He still keeps making the throws. Go watch the Carolina and NO tape of guys coming outta the backfield in the flat, open and signaling for it, and Luck either not even looking at them (Carolina) or making some early attempts and missing horribly (NO). No one is hyping up Pep, no one is saying Luck sucks, get over this one or the other narrative ********. But it's a systemic failure that I really think is more rooted in Luck, not Pep, not being able to adapt.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pep fired

                  So you're absolving Pep and putting most of this on Luck.
                  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


                  • #69
                    Re: Pep fired

                    not absolving but yeah, I think most of it's on Luck

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pep fired

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Irsay would no longer be fit to own an NFL team if he gave the coaching job to Chudzinski.

                      The Colts have prestige, history, money, Andrew Luck, and a virtually guaranteed playoff spot in the AFC South. If Irsay doesn't leverage that into a top-notch head coaching hire, then Irsay is no longer fit to own the team.

                      Agreed. Cowherd said today that there are even rumors that current NFL head coaches would be willing to quit their current jobs and slide over to Indy because of the weak division and the universal thought that despite his slump, Luck is the next great QB on the horizon.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pep fired

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        No one is saying Luck is playing great, so you can also move on from that point..
                        No, but you don't seem to put any of what's going on to Luck and his poor play outside "he needs to pick it up". Through 6 games - he has the lowest QB rating in the league right now. If he's elite, we should hold him to that standard.

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        This is a Pep thread, not a Luck Sucks thread
                        I'm not saying "Luck sucks", nor have I said that. Ever. I'm simply saying that he's playing poorly, and has been playing poorly for quite some time now. He is one of the main reasons that this team is struggling. If this were happening to any other QB, this wouldn't be a conversation, yet it's different when it comes to Luck. I was pointing out his continual struggles because I think it's what led to Pep getting fired.

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        ut that said, he's injured, which can certainly make a lot of his throws look like bad decisions, because he can't place the ball where is mind knows he needs to put it. A lot of his throws are floating and behind. He can't put as much on the ball as usual. You can see where he *intended* to put it, but it got nowhere near. I mostly think he's just injured whereas Pep was the one making most of the bad decisions.
                        Luck has been playing this way since December of last season. He finished last season with similar numbers that he's putting up now

                        Dec - 53.6%, 6TD, 5 INT, 71.1 Rating
                        Playoffs - 58.3%, 3TD, 4INT, 71.8 Rating.

                        So unless he's been inured since December of last season, I don't see how that's an excuse and not a trend of play.

                        Edit: Again, I don't think Luck sucks. I think he's overrated, but I think he's quite talented. I just don't believe his issues lie within the play calling as much as they lie within his decision making and accuracy right now.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pep fired

                          I most certainly have called out Luck. This is a Pep thread. He was fired because he didn't do his job. Not because Luck didn't do his.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Pep fired

                            This entire offense has sucked this year, not just Luck. The line has been a soap opera. The receivers can't get open. The running backs have self-induced fumbles. The person who coordinates all this wasn't getting the job done. Even when this offense experienced periods of success in the past, it felt throttled, and it was after stretches of many games of not performing to level, and taking way too long to adjust. We don't utilize player's strengths. We never achieved any sort of balance or consistency.
                            This all was what Pep was responsible for. Often times it felt like we only experienced success when we abandoned Pep's gameplan and let Luck do his thing, usually after being down multiple scores.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-04-2015, 03:52 PM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pep fired

                              The complaints this year about the offense, have been the same (not all) complaints about the Colts offense last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that.

                              "But he's only been with the Colts for 4 years....."

                              Yeah, the same complaints people had about Pep Hamilton are the SAME EXACT complaints people had about him when he was with Luck at Stanford. When the same complaints, not just the crappy throws or INTS, but the scheme complaints have followed the same guy for 7 years, I think it's pretty safe to assume it falls on his shoulders.

                              The main complaint about Pep is, and has been, he doesn't maximize strengths with his play calling.

                              We all know INTs mainly fall on the QB. But the issues go far beyond bad throws and turnovers.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pep fired

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                This entire offense has sucked this year, not just Luck. The line has been a soap opera. The receivers can't get open. The running backs have self-induced fumbles. The person who coordinates all this wasn't getting the job done. Even when this offense experienced periods of success in the past, it felt throttled, and it was after stretches of many games of not performing to level, and taking way too long to adjust. We don't utilize player's strengths. We never achieved any sort of balance or consistency.
                                This all was what Pep was responsible for. Often times it felt like we only experienced success when we abandoned Pep's gameplan and let Luck do his thing, usually after being down multiple scores.
                                Did Pep stop calling the game once the team was down? No, he was the one calling the plays when the team would make their dramatic comeback, just as he was the one calling them when they got down to begin with. That's just another cop out.

                                I completely agree that Pep was inconsistent with his play calling and ability to maximize the talent of his skill players.

                                If Luck continues to play as he has, then the firing of Pep won't improve or change a thing -- which is exactly what the firing is supposed to garner in the first place.

                                I'd predict the typical 2ish game boost to the offense whenever a coach is fired, but after that I'd assume the offense and QB would return to the standard. The only way that doesn't happen is if the bad decisions and inaccurate throws are minimized.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X