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

  • Re: Pep fired

    Outside of NE, GB and MAYBE Arizona right now-- what offense runs at 100%? Leading the league in passing TDs is pretty damn good. So it's not like it was a total disaster.

    To go from that to this is a drastic change when everything else is essentially the same in terms of plays and skill players (Andre Johnson is essentially Reggie Wayne at this point). The only difference has been Luck and his play

    I do agree that the offense could be better, but they would have to be more of a west coast type of offense that lacks the attempts at the explosive plays that Luck enjoys. He would have to improve his short and intermediate accuracy, but I think that type of offense would suit his skill and the offense much better

    Comment


    • Re: Pep fired

      I think you have goggles on if Luck is the only guy not playing well.
      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: Pep fired

        Ohh Im not saying that. I think he's the head of the snake but I think others are playing poorly as well. TY is not a number one guy and Andre Johnson is worse than Reggie last season. I can't remember the last time Dwayne Allen did anything at all. I think Moncrief and Fleener are playing well when they get the chance, and I think the o line is better than given credit for.

        But when you're supposed to be an elite QB you're supposed to raise the level of play of those around you. Luck was the greatest QB prospect since Elway and many here think he's a top 3-5 QB. So those are the standards I judge him by

        Comment


        • Re: Pep fired

          Right, so what does that mean when almost everyone on the offense is playing worse? At a time where we were supposed to have more offensive talent than almost every team? And keep in mind, some of us have been recognizing Pep's questionable work way prior to this year when it dropped off a cliff.

          Hint: it's coaching.

          Btw, I don't want people thinking I go against coaches all the time. The only two other coaches I railed on was Isiah and JOB. That doesn't mean I'm married to Pagano as our long-term HC, but I honestly don't think he's been near as bad as the amount flack he gets would indicate. The main problem with this team this year has been almost purely on offense --- which should not have been considering the pieces we had in place. It didn't shock me though, because I felt like Luck had been masking it. It doesn't shock me that he got injured and our offense went off the rails. Luck can't mask it when he's hurt. I think that's what we're seeing now. Pep couldn't hide behind Superman's cape this year because Grigson's complete lack of addressing the o line introduced some kryptonite, and without Superman carrying everything, Pep was exposed.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-05-2015, 08:38 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


          • Re: Pep fired

            BTW... Next offseason... I think Luck might want to skip the commercials...
            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: Pep fired

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              BTW... Next offseason... I think Luck might want to skip the commercials...
              What impact does filming commercials in the off-season have to do with anything ?? It's not like the guy is skipping practices to make them.

              Comment


              • Re: Pep fired

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                I believe in Chud.
                I'm fine with him in 2015, but we need a complete house-cleaning after this season.

                Comment


                • Re: Pep fired

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Because they get to beat up on the AFC South every year. Their record vs AFC south opponents to non-AFC south opponents, while I don't know the exact numbers, are stark differences. When the Colts have had to buckle down against good teams, they've gotten smashed and not done very well offensively. It's just like NCAA teams that are pretty good on paper, because they schedule midmajors throughout their season and their ability to play so well against inferior competition skews their overall numbers upwards. This season, they're not only bad against good/average teams but have been pretty bad against the bad teams too.

                  I think it's completely fair, because the complaints are being consistent. I didn't like the play calling when the Colts were playing "well" and I've not liked the play calling when they've played **** poor. The consistent thing is Pep's crappy game plans.
                  Since 2013, the Colts are 15 - 0 against the AFC South, and 10 - 15 against everyone else.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pep fired

                    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                    What impact does filming commercials in the off-season have to do with anything ?? It's not like the guy is skipping practices to make them.
                    He needs to focus on his play on the field, study, private workouts, etc... versus worrying about the cameras focusing on him.
                    Even if the commercials didn't really impact anything in his preparation for the season, they're flat out embarrassing right now with the way he's playing. But that stuff has to be a distraction between the negotiations, scripts, rewrites, schedules, shoots, re-shoots, etc...
                    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: Pep fired

                      Ya, I don't really believe in the whole "don't do commercials" thing unless it's just ridiculous over-exposure like RG3 a few years ago. Luck was in a few, but they weren't over the top. It's not embarrassing to be injured, it just happens.
                      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: Pep fired

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        What's he supposed to do, just hand off 80 times a game? He's off - sometimes his throws are on, and other times not. Really it comes down to sitting him, but it's Andrew Luck, how do you sit him if he's functional, even if at only 70%? You don't, you just work through it, which is what we've been doing. Which is why this has nothing to do with Pep. If they felt that Luck truly was playing bad and Pep was fine, they wouldn't have cut him. Pep's removal was a separate and obvious situation.
                        No, you absolutely sit him if he is only 70%. Especially when they showed they will win the divisional games without him. He is your entire franchise right now. You are losing games with him in and risking further injury. If its the injuries that are causing the issues (which I do not believe they are the primary reason) then you absolutely sit him. You're not winning the Super bowl this year. Why kill Luck this year?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pep fired

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          I'm fine with him in 2015, but we need a complete house-cleaning after this season.
                          Agreed. We have let things get stale by being satisfied with 11-5 being bolstered by AFC South wins. That has been masking issues for quite a while.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pep fired

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            No, you absolutely sit him if he is only 70%. Especially when they showed they will win the divisional games without him. He is your entire franchise right now. You are losing games with him in and risking further injury. If its the injuries that are causing the issues (which I do not believe they are the primary reason) then you absolutely sit him. You're not winning the Super bowl this year. Why kill Luck this year?
                            Right, you honestly would bench Luck. I know it sounds easy, but try it. You would put him with the RG3's and Kaepernicks of the world, and after only half a season. You do realize what you're saying, right? The doctors have cleared him, so sitting him now is purely performance-based. HUGE move.

                            Three words: Nah hapnin', bruh.

                            And the 70% was a general statement of when they would put him on the field, I didn't say he is 70% right now, you misunderstood me. It was more of a "if his leg fell off and they reattched it and he was able to take a step, he's going back out there", tongue-in-cheek.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-06-2015, 02:05 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


                            • Re: Pep fired

                              70% Luck is better than Hasselbeck.

                              "But look at what Matt did!"

                              Yeah, with different playcalling......
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pep fired

                                Does Andrew Luck believe he got Pep Hamilton fired?
                                http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...hamilton-fired

                                Is Andrew Luck the reason Pep Hamilton was fired by the Indianapolis Colts?

                                It's a deep question, with many facets and tangents.

                                Indianapolis Star columnist Gregg Doyel went right to the source, asking Luck, "Do you think you got him fired?"

                                "Part of me does, yeah," Luck replied before expounding on the offense's need to score more points.

                                Doyle then pressed a little harder, asking if Luck felt he specifically got Hamilton fired.

                                "Yeah," he said . "Can't dwell on it. Have to move on. But ... but, yeah."

                                Luck has been a huge disappointment this season, completing just 54.9 percent of his passes with 13 touchdowns and 12 interceptions. The quarterback -- whether due to injury, poor blocking or mental yips -- hasn't trusted his arm or eyes this season, often throwing late or holding onto the ball in the pocket.

                                The quarterback bore the blame for the offensive struggles.

                                "I don't think the turnovers have anything to do with who the coordinator was," he said. "Turnovers fall on my shoulders and my shoulders only."

                                Luck's best play this season has been when his team is down by more than two touchdowns. When the Colts are trailing by 15 or more points, Luck has thrown five touchdowns and one interception, with a 112.5 passer rating. In all other situations, Luck has eight TDs and 11 INTs for a passer rating of 60.5.

                                A major question is how much of that garbage-time production is defenses playing lax and how much is the Colts' offense going up-tempo and mostly ditching the ground game. Given Hamilton's firing, Indy's brass seems to believe it more a function of the latter.

                                As with almost every decision in the NFL, the quarterback played a major part. Obviously, Luck didn't try to get Hamilton fired, but his struggles directly led to it. Luck's smart enough and self-aware enough to realize it.

                                Now, as the quarterback said, it's time to move on with Rob Chudzinski. Indy, at 3-5, still has a division it can win.
                                Here's an interesting video to go along with it: http://www.nfl.com/videos/indianapol...-with-Bucky-DJ

                                It kind of speaks to both sides of the coin regarding Luck's tendency to not look at the simple throw, and the offense looking to push the ball downfield.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X