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

ESPN: Andrew Luck retiring

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

  • #76
    This is like the Malice at the Palace all over again. A franchise on the cusp of sustained greatness and it is all undone by a freaking headcase at the worst possible moment.
    Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-25-2019, 01:55 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
      This like the Malice at the Palace all over again. A franchise on the cusp of sustained greatness and it is all undone by a freaking headcase at the worst possible moment.
      I wouldn't put Andrew Luck into Ron Artest category he's not beating up fans he's getting beat up. I don't blame him for wanting to walk away but the timing is terrible if he did in the offseason I don't think people would be nearly as upset as they are now. I mean yeah it would suck but at least we would be able to move on. However to lead the fans on thinking he was going to start Week 1 etc is another story.

      Comment


      • #78
        I'm still struggling to put all of this into perspective.

        Now I'm thinking about the fans that booed Luck off the field.

        I can't help but think that it's not in some way the product of a team that refuses to be more honest with fans about injuries to star players.

        Andrew Luck is retiring with what was told to us was a "mild" calf injury from April. At some point, fans shouldn't have to read between the lines and speculate that things were more serious than we were being told. We shouldn't be guessing if regular season games were really in doubt.
        Would it have hurt to given vague details like Irsay finally gave recently, much sooner? Would it have hurt to mention it wasn't responding to treatment? Would it have hurt to have admitted Luck's playing in the regular season, and when, was very much in question? Would it have hurt to have said it head on or leaked some information that Luck was not upbeat about this latest injury/recovery/rehab and that it was wearing on him?

        Nobody was expecting X rays and daily medical updates, but this decision should not be coming as a total surprise. Even if you were skeptical of what the team was saying, you're still surprised it's came to this... like this. And if you took the team at their word, or listened to sunshiny fans who downplayed any negative speculation as Debbie-downers and up-sold what the team was already selling, then you're definitely blindsided.

        If the fans actually had time to contemplate this from a realistic frame of mind, maybe those boos don't happen. Maybe the fans are rooting and pulling for Luck knowing/thinking how much playing football means to him and hoping the rumors/reports aren't true, but knowing that nobody is officially denying the significance of this latest injury, and believing Luck is trying to be ready to play if he can, would give everyone some realistic context.

        I don't know... I just think the Colts definitely got bit, and by association, Luck was bit as well, by the team not publicly being more forthcoming with the severity of what Luck was dealing with both physically and mentally.
        Last edited by Bball; 08-25-2019, 01:58 AM.
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

          I wouldn't put Andrew Luck into Ron Artest category he's not beating up fans he's getting beat up. I don't blame him for wanting to walk away but the timing is terrible if he did in the offseason I don't think people would be nearly as upset as they are now. I mean yeah it would suck but at least we would be able to move on. However to lead the fans on thinking he was going to start Week 1 etc is another story.
          You donít retire two weeks before the season starts and leave your former employer scrambling unless you are doing it out of spite.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post

            You donít retire two weeks before the season starts and leave your former employer scrambling unless you are doing it out of spite.
            At the very least I think there's a lot more to this story that we don't know. I also think the Colts weren't that blindsided about this if the reports are true that they had an idea this was a possibility since March. It would explain the weirdness surrounding his injury. They were probably hoping they could talk him out of it and realized they couldn't. Well its no skin of Irsay's nose since the season tickets have been paid for this season.

            I mean Luck has been beat up for years we've seen this I get why he would want to walk away while he can but I agree to do this two weeks before the season starts isn't a good look. If he had retired in the offseason it wouldn't have been so bad(I mean it would suck but the Colts wouldn't be put in this bad spot now) Its not like Ron who wanted to devote time to his rap album.

            Comment


            • #81
              The fans were upset. People do and say things they don't mean when they're upset. It's like telling your spouse you hate them during an argument. You both know you don't mean it, you just got caught up in the heat in the moment. You wait for things to cool down and you apologize.

              That's what will happen here. Luck will be brought back at some point during the season -- maybe the first home game, but probably later to give things time to heal -- and the fans will cheer. There will be "Thank You Andrew" signs. Probably some tears. And that will be that. We'll all move on.

              Here's a thought question: let's say after a year or two off, Luck completely heals up and regains his passion for football. He unretires. Do you take him back, knowing he's already walked out on the team once, or do you try to flip him in a trade?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post
                The fans were upset. People do and say things they don't mean when they're upset. It's like telling your spouse you hate them during an argument. You both know you don't mean it, you just got caught up in the heat in the moment. You wait for things to cool down and you apologize.

                That's what will happen here. Luck will be brought back at some point during the season -- maybe the first home game, but probably later to give things time to heal -- and the fans will cheer. There will be "Thank You Andrew" signs. Probably some tears. And that will be that. We'll all move on.

                Here's a thought question: let's say after a year or two off, Luck completely heals up and regains his passion for football. He unretires. Do you take him back, knowing he's already walked out on the team once, or do you try to flip him in a trade?
                I wouldn't take him back plus we don't know what will become of the Colts in a couple years maybe we'll draft someone who will stick around.

                That being said I don't think Luck is coming back to the NFL at least as Colt.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Losing one of the NFL's best QBs sucks, but if he thought he could no longer get the job done, then it is probably better for the team so they can move on without having his uncertainty hanging over them.

                  Brissett is a competent QB in his own right, and the Colts still could have a good season in store for them.
                  Last edited by RamBo_Lamar; 08-25-2019, 06:29 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post
                    I just remembered Dwayne Haskins -- projected as a top 5 or 10 pick -- was there at #27, and we gave him to the Redskins. Damn.
                    The Redskins took Haskins at 15. The pick the Colts traded was used on a defensive end.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Taking the 'fan' emotions out of the equation, good for him. We have no idea what he's gone thru over the years. Injuries hurt. Rehab is a long, tough process. I'm not sure I'd want to live the next few years of my life going thru that with the potential of living the rest of my life with some physical issues that might linger on. Can't call the guy a quitter - he gave everything he had until he didn't have anymore to give. And it's not up to us as fans to determine if this is the right thing to do. For him - it is and we just have to go with it.

                      It's not selfish - it's a logical and well thought out decision which I would guess included input from doctors, specialists, friends, family, etc... Too many players hang on too long simply because they're at a loss for what to do for the rest of their lives. He's a smart guy and he'll go on to do other good things in his life besides playing a game.

                      I have confidence in Ballard to do the right thing for the team going forward. I wouldn't expect any knee-jerk reaction or reckless spending of money trying to fill the spot. He'll do something logical and well though out also.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post
                        Here's a thought question: let's say after a year or two off, Luck completely heals up and regains his passion for football. He unretires. Do you take him back, knowing he's already walked out on the team once, or do you try to flip him in a trade?
                        outsider looking in: Luck is an out of this world talent, and one that comes around rarely. I think you take him back with open arms, especially if he is healed up 100%

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Regarding the boos - letís stop acting like it was 60,000 people booing in mass. Iíve heard it multiple times and it seems like a relatively small (but loud) batch of fans near the tunnel.

                          Sorry, but itís pretty effed up during a game to find out that your franchise QB is retiring as youíre staring at him on the sidelines. People are human and fan is short for fanatic. This whole ďI have more class when I root for grown men running around playing a game than you doĒ stuff cracks me up.

                          So who leaked this to Schefter? Someone who was in the know really wanted to humiliate either Luck or the Colts or both. This was an extremely awkward situation for both parties and it couldnít have been worse timing.

                          Someone was going for MAX humiliation by strategically leaking this to Schefter during a game. Luck was on the sidelines talking to teammates and all of the sudden he had to be faced with the fact that everyone in the stadium found out something that they were supposed to find out the next day.

                          Seems like someone really wanted to stick it to Luck by strategically breaking it to Schefter during a game.

                          Iím glad that Schefter got this massive scoop instead of Florio The Pius over at PatsFootballTalk. I grudgingly admit that Florio is good at breaking big stories (like McDaniels spurning the Colts), but he is unprofessionally biased with reporting. Almost Every Colts related article has some sort of snarky comment from him in it. And the Colts are far from the only thing where he introduces his biased opinions. Thereís a reason that site is littered with Obsessive Pats fans in the comments section - itís their hometown news site.

                          Florio would have especially loved this scoop because he loves seeing the Colts get humiliated. So Iím really glad that Schefter got it instead. Schefter is much more professional because he has the ability to break news without inserting his snarky biased opinion into everything.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Sad day for Luck no doubt. Sad day for the fans and the organization. Really disappointed. No ill will toward him though. Has to do what's right for him.

                            Timing is weird, but I think this "mulling" it dates back to the labrum injury, rehab, and lost season. I wonder if, despite his impressive comeback campaign, his mental and emotional relationship to playing might not have already been diminished.

                            This is the most well rounded, deepest team he would have played on in his tenure here. In some ways, you'd hope that plus more development time with the team than his first season here would bode well for Brissett assuming the starting role. I fully hope JB will prove that to be the case. However, I've never been particularly impressed with his play. Maybe Reich scheming for his game really boosts his effectiveness. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kelly take over the starting role by the halfway point.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                              Taking the 'fan' emotions out of the equation, good for him. We have no idea what he's gone thru over the years. Injuries hurt. Rehab is a long, tough process. I'm not sure I'd want to live the next few years of my life going thru that with the potential of living the rest of my life with some physical issues that might linger on. Can't call the guy a quitter - he gave everything he had until he didn't have anymore to give. And it's not up to us as fans to determine if this is the right thing to do. For him - it is and we just have to go with it.

                              It's not selfish - it's a logical and well thought out decision which I would guess included input from doctors, specialists, friends, family, etc... Too many players hang on too long simply because they're at a loss for what to do for the rest of their lives. He's a smart guy and he'll go on to do other good things in his life besides playing a game.

                              I have confidence in Ballard to do the right thing for the team going forward. I wouldn't expect any knee-jerk reaction or reckless spending of money trying to fill the spot. He'll do something logical and well though out also.
                              Itís of course his body and only he knows how heís feeling. So we certainly do have to respect that.

                              But as fans, I think weíre drawn to the Peyton Manning and Tiger Woods of the world. Both of these guys hit rock bottom physically, yet still had the urge to comeback and reach the pinnacle of their sport even though they had already been to the top. Manning literally had his neck cut into, but still had the drive to comeback and play elite football again. And while golf isnít the same as getting hit in the NFL, Tiger Woodsís injuries were still very serious and he had an absolutely grueling comeback on his way back to winning The Masters.

                              Thats the type of stuff that leaves fans in awe. A guy retiring at 30 at a position where people play into their late 30ís and even 40ís is just a bit tough to digest.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-25-2019, 08:45 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I'm sitting here watching videos of Chad Kelly, actually working myself into excitement. He seems to be a douche bag, but a talented douche bag with higher upside than Jacoby Brissett.

                                Watch this video and tell me you're not even a little bit excited about the kid.



                                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                                The Redskins took Haskins at 15. The pick the Colts traded was used on a defensive end.
                                Ah, right. That makes me a little less suicidal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X