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:
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

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

ESPN: Andrew Luck retiring

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If Luck was ever to want to come back, I hope the Colts are in a position where they can say "no" and don't even have to consider it. At best let it be a situation where they can trade his rights and get some players to help the team who know they want to play football.

    Until I see something proving things differently, I don't think there was any injury of note this year. Luck just didn't want to play football any longer. That's his right. But it still makes him a quitter and someone you cannot trust to quit again.
    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


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I don't think there was any injury of note this year. . . . . makes him a quitter .
      So, based on an assumption of yours, you draw a definite conclusion ??

      It really doesn't work that way, but carry on.


      • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

        So, based on an assumption of yours, you draw a definite conclusion ??

        It really doesn't work that way, but carry on.
        When you give the public literally no information of substance, people are going to make assumptions. There is plenty that Luck could clear up if he wanted to, but he has chosen to be ultra secretive about the injury and process. Totally his right, but people’s minds are going to wander.


        • Even if he did give more info, most people wouldn't believe it unless he said what those people WANT to hear.


          • Well, and at the end of the day, there's a reality. Just because a party doesn't give enough info, making "people's minds wander", doesn't mean the wandering minds are doing anything but wandering, and that's what people with wandering minds need to realize. There's reality, and then there's invented alternative realities. And while the alternative realities are all fun and adventurous, I guess... it's still nothing but an invented alternate reality, which is to say --- it's all ********, lol.

            And while I can't understand what Luck is doing, I also don't want to get in the business of inventing our own story. It's a waste of time.

            Here's my stance --- I had a good quarterback, and for reasons I don't understand, I don't have that good quarterback anymore--- and I don't like it. And that's about all I can say with any sort of certainty.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-14-2019, 11:24 AM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.


            • Frankly I just want to enjoy and talk about the team we ARE fielding. A team that is super talented and well put together, well coached, and excited for the fact that in another year or 2 we're going to be darn good, even great team.
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


              • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                So, based on an assumption of yours, you draw a definite conclusion ??

                It really doesn't work that way, but carry on.
                Actually, it does. Luck could've went on IR and waited this out. He didn't want to. He wanted to quit. So even if there was an injury, which I think is mostly BS because of the secretive way it was handled (and still is), it doesn't matter... He wanted to quit.

                He was mentally ready to check out.

                And he did.
                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


                • When Luck retired, my friend (Broncos fan) said it's destiny that Luck comes back and wins a super bowl for the Broncos. Elway and Manning did it. Both have ties to the Colts.

                  When he said that, I said keep dreaming but kind of believed it. Now that Brissett is balling and Luck decides to make a comeback, I have a hard time seeing the Colts giving Brissett the boot.

                  Luck playing for the Broncos would be a nightmare.
                  Last edited by BornIndy; 10-22-2019, 02:37 PM.


                  • The Broncos suck. Why would Luck go there?


                    • Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                      The Broncos suck. Why would Luck go there?
                      Because it worked out well for the last two QBs drafted by the Colts who went to Denver....

                      That being said I don't see it happening either

                      1) I think Luck is done with football and won't ever return.
                      2) The Colts have his rights for the next three years so he would have to wait till then to even play and by then the NFL will have left him behind.


                      • Forget about Luck. At this point, whatever money he gave up should be paid to Brissett. Brissett is a badass and Luck did us a favor...;-)


                        • I agree Luck did us a favor but not really sure if Brissett is the long term answer for this team sure he's having a good season(and has a good coach this time around) that being said he does enough to win which is all I care about so he fits with the current version of this team. Don't see him as a game changer like Mahomes, Rodgers etc. though but he doesn't need to be either if the rest of the team is good.


                          • Florio must be drunk/bored if he's starting this rumor since the Colts own his rights for what the next 3 years...


                            • I'd find the rumors/speculation of the XFL more likely. ...Not that I find them all that likely... But with his dad being commissioner there'd be a tie-in for him. He could've had some off the cuff/off the record "hypothetical" conversations about a potential landing spot and salary numbers. He'd immediately be a 'star' (although also make a lot of enemies). OTOH, he'd give the new league credibility so would help it be viable and an alternative landing spot for potential future NFL players and players on the periphery (which could mean he'd be a hero to NFLPA players and players on the outside looking in, giving them more bargaining power and another legitimate option to continue playing football for a living). Aren't they only playing an 8 game season? That would be easier on the body and the mind. Does the XFL have any special rules protecting the QB even more than the NFL does or in someway being a more QB-centric league that a QB might prefer?

                              Not that I think this would be all that likely, but I could see how it could possibly come to fruition if it were to happen.

                              I don't know why Luck wouldn't come back to the Colts before he'd take off for Las Vegas and the Raiders... or anywhere else in the NFL. Maybe if a strong team just needed a QB, but that arguably could be the Colts right now.
                              Heh... or the Pats!

                              But seriously, if he was to want to come back to play in the NFL, why not the Colts?

                              OTOH, if it was to comeback with an entirely different set of circumstances, I could see, in a way, how that could be the XFL.

                              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


                              • Probably because the Colts have done a terrible job so far? Especially with handling his injuries etc. That being said I don't think Luck is going to return to football he couldn't return to the NFL unless the Colts trade him because they have his rights for the next 3 years.

                                Which is why this is laughable.. the XFL is plausible for the reasons you listed.