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

2018 Andrew Luck Progress Report

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

  • Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
    He's still a worry given the types of hits he took today. The Bengals played dirty as they usually do, so hopefully this isn't a weekly occurrence.
    I thought the Bengals were played very dirty as well. The guy who got tossed deserved it - he clearly lead with this head intending to injure. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets another week since that's exactly what the NFL is trying to get out of the game. I have no idea how Luck didn't get concussed or worse on that.

    I actually thought most of the other hits he took weren't too bad as these things go, other than the time he took a helmet to the chin and then got flopped on by 350 pounds of linemen, which was also dirty and penalized. I liked how he generally stayed in the pocket and went through his reads. I like the play calling too, more short passes which helped the line, and also help Luck get in the habit of getting rid of the ball quicker.

    All and all, he exceeded my expectations by a fair bit. He looked healthy, and mostly pretty sharp.

    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

      I wonder what practice he is watching? Greg Cosell from NFL films says Luck has not had a good preseason and he lacks zip on the ball which is what I noticed in the Seattle game comparing his passes to Wilson's lasers. On another forum people watching those practices say that Luck is floating a lot of passes and that he lacks zip on the ball and it is really noticeable when he is throwing right beside Brissett. I will be watching Monday night but at this stage that zip problem is disconcerting.
      Is Ol Blu on "vacation" again? That's probably best. He would be blowing up this board right now. I hope he didn't crash his RV.

      One thing you have to admit is that he's pretty well on target with this post from over 2 weeks ago.
      Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

      Comment


      • You quote Blu, why? When have you ever dug up one of us "sunshiner" posts and said wow guess you all were right after all"? But you do for Blu?

        3 games in, I personally didn't expect Luck to be ripping 100mph fastballs at this point, did you? Most of you said Luck was "done" and didn't have hope he'd even be back, and yet here we are. So I'd say we've progressed well past what you all thought he'd be by now. He's going to take time getting that pre-injury strength back, that's pretty much a given. Stating his arm strength isn't 100% yet is pretty much "duh" for me.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-27-2018, 08:08 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


        • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          You quote Blu, why? When have you ever dug up one of us "sunshiner" posts and said wow guess you all were right after all"? But you do for Blu?

          3 games in, I personally didn't expect Luck to be ripping 100mph fastballs at this point, did you? Most of you said Luck was "done" and didn't have hope he'd even be back, and yet here we are. So I'd say we've progressed well past what you all thought he'd be by now. He's going to take time getting that pre-injury strength back, that's pretty much a given. Stating his arm strength isn't 100% yet is pretty much "duh" for me.
          He is actually exactly where I expected. I wasn't saying the same thing as Ol Blu. I had issues with the veracity of many statements made by Colts management about his status. But as for Luck, I was hoping he would fully recover.

          Really I thought it would go one of two ways. He would come back and with surgery and magnificent rehab considering his visible increase in muscle mass, I thought the upside was that he would be pretty dominant. The downside was that he would get into the season and things would go downhill and either his arm would come apart either from using it or some kind of nasty hit.

          So far, it's still looking OK. I don't still don't know how this thing turns out and I don't want the Colts talking like they are not concerned. I want honesty and truthfulness like many fans and I don't think we've always gotten that out of the Colts and I'm not talking just about Irsay.

          ...and btw, I just quoted the biggest Colts fan of them all...
          Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            You quote Blu, why? When have you ever dug up one of us "sunshiner" posts and said wow guess you all were right after all"? But you do for Blu?

            3 games in, I personally didn't expect Luck to be ripping 100mph fastballs at this point, did you? Most of you said Luck was "done" and didn't have hope he'd even be back, and yet here we are. So I'd say we've progressed well past what you all thought he'd be by now. He's going to take time getting that pre-injury strength back, that's pretty much a given. Stating his arm strength isn't 100% yet is pretty much "duh" for me.
            I'm starting to believe they're both the same person.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BornIndy View Post
              I'm starting to believe they're both the same person.
              That's why I call him Old Blu and Gold.

              Comment


              • I don't think they're the same. Ol' Blu was just a bitter old dude with attachment issues, and he only came here to be a nuisance. He got banned after the Bengals game, BTW.

                Comment


                • Luck isn't back fully. But he has already shown he is a game changer in just three games. Minus the Doyle fumble and dropped passes in the end zone and no one is quoting a banned troll. There is no indication that Luck will not regain his velocity. There is indications that he can be the quarterback who can take a team with an elite defense and strong positional players into the playoffs. I mean if we had a taller receiver the pass to TY would have gotten us a score. If we had tackles we would have had a shot on 4th and 3. If we had an experienced elite defense the go-ahead drive riddled with penalties would not have happened. We have 13 more games and we can play the guessing game and some will be right and others wrong. The problem is when we are so bent on proving ourselves right that we alter what is happening. Confirmation bias happens and we dig into extremes and paint the other side with extremes. This is not honest discourse. Going forward I would encourage to evaluate what is at hand in the scope of what is at hand.

                  BlueandGod is not Blu. He may share similar qualities, but at least he is willing to talk about things in detail.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                    Luck isn't back fully. But he has already shown he is a game changer in just three games. Minus the Doyle fumble and dropped passes in the end zone and no one is quoting a banned troll. There is no indication that Luck will not regain his velocity. There is indications that he can be the quarterback who can take a team with an elite defense and strong positional players into the playoffs. I mean if we had a taller receiver the pass to TY would have gotten us a score. If we had tackles we would have had a shot on 4th and 3. If we had an experienced elite defense the go-ahead drive riddled with penalties would not have happened. We have 13 more games and we can play the guessing game and some will be right and others wrong. The problem is when we are so bent on proving ourselves right that we alter what is happening. Confirmation bias happens and we dig into extremes and paint the other side with extremes. This is not honest discourse. Going forward I would encourage to evaluate what is at hand in the scope of what is at hand.

                    BlueandGod is not Blu. He may share similar qualities, but at least he is willing to talk about things in detail.
                    Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                      I don't think they're the same. Ol' Blu was just a bitter old dude with attachment issues, and he only came here to be a nuisance. He got banned after the Bengals game, BTW.
                      Bless Ol Blu's heart but he is the picture you see in the dictionary next to the word Troll. You know this not because he is objective, willing to criticize or even has a critical bent. I can be like that. He's a troll for a myriad of other reasons.
                      Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                      Comment


                      • 4500/36/12 pace through the first quarter of the year

                        Comment


                        • some ups and downs to start, then a really good game yesterday, if he can look good again on a short week on Thursday I'm pretty comfortable with where he's at and going forward

                          Comment


                          • One big difference in his hail Mary and Brissett's is Brissett's nearly went out of the endzone. Luck's ended up just at the goalline where it needed to be. Of course the receivers weren't there yet... but that is a bit on Luck and timing and a bit on the line and Luck throwing when he had to throw.

                            My point is... if you have one throw and one throw only, I want Luck throwing it. I don't trust Brissett's touch at all.

                            I also think it's time to start thinking about trading Brissett if there's any real value there at all. Luck seems sufficiently 'back' to play the season and the team record would indicate we're not going to be in any position to need a backup who can go 1-1 or 1-2 to tread water and keep us in the playoff hunt if Luck was to miss a couple of games with a new injury.
                            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, thatís teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              One big difference in his hail Mary and Brissett's is Brissett's nearly went out of the endzone. Luck's ended up just at the goalline where it needed to be. Of course the receivers weren't there yet... but that is a bit on Luck and timing and a bit on the line and Luck throwing when he had to throw.

                              My point is... if you have one throw and one throw only, I want Luck throwing it. I don't trust Brissett's touch at all.

                              I also think it's time to start thinking about trading Brissett if there's any real value there at all. Luck seems sufficiently 'back' to play the season and the team record would indicate we're not going to be in any position to need a backup who can go 1-1 or 1-2 to tread water and keep us in the playoff hunt if Luck was to miss a couple of games with a new injury.
                              If Luck gets injured we aren't going to tread water without him. We aren't treading water with him. And not because of him. My guess is the rest of the team will hit their stride. But I don't see us winning more than 6 games with a Luck like this. The inexperience is evident. The lack of tackle and cornerback is evident. We don't have the pieces yet to compete. Maybe if people come back from injuries, then they need to get acclimated.

                              Comment


                              • I still think we can hold off trading Brissett. There's no hurry, and this team isn't going anywhere this year. We've got no other QB to back Luck up, and until our tackle situation is fixed, I'd feel more comfortable with a good backup around.
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X