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

2019 Indianapolis Colts Regular Season Thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dominating performance by the Colts last night. They manhandled the Queefs on both sides of the line of scrimmage. And of course all the media coverage is about what is wrong with the Queefs and not what is right with the Colts. Oh well. The ‘Shoe got the dub and that is all that matters.


    • Old fashioned "tough man" football, never thought I'd say that about the Colts. We out-toughed and bullied the Chiefs.

      This team is becoming about Quenton Nelson. I think he's become unquestionably our best player. He's my favorite current Colt now and is already way up there all-time for me. Nobody wants to face that man, and he seems to have rubbed off on the guys next to him. Our O line is becoming a highlight of my games.

      The way they pushed around that Chief front was just domination. Look, Mack is a good back, but he's doing what he's doing over the last 16 games or so because of the push that Oline is getting. Behind our previous lines, there's no way Mack is even talked about as a feature back. There's no way we go 7-for-7 on 4th down mostly on running plays without being able to just hike the ball and drive opposing D-lines straight backwards. A lot of the holes that open up around Nelson you could drive a Mack truck through. Our o line has become the strength of the team.

      I love me some Big Q.

      Our defense has had it's up and downs, but they had a helluva game last night, and with a lot of young backups. Very inconsistent displays right now, but glad they showed up last night. They harrassed Mahomes all game, who is a ridiculously-talented player who didn't quite look himself last night, the Chiefs looked all kinds of disjointed on offense.

      It's also becoming apparent to me that Brissett is what I thought he is --- a game manager. He's just not Luck. He'll mostly protect the ball, won't put up gaudy number... he'll move the chains, put us in position to be in most games, even win. I don't see a part of his game, however, that shows he can take over and put a team on his back like Luck did for years. Just bums me out that Luck walked away, there's no telling what kind of team we'd be this year with Luck behind center. Having a hard time still accepting this...

      This team is freakin' banged up. I get so tired of seeing the news. Our secondary is ravaged; Hooker, Geathers, Leonard all out, we just lost Turay for the season, it just never feels like we're ever anywhere close to full strength.

      Amazing that we did defensively what we did against the Chiefs in light of that. Eberflus is just crazy good and we're lucky we were able to retain him this year, I fully suspect he's a head coach somewhere next year.

      Was really glad to see Vinny back to himself.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-07-2019, 12:23 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.


      • Hopefully we get Geathers, Leonard and maybe Campbell back after the bye. Hooker might be another week away. As for QB, Brissett is not the long term answer. A good backup but not a franchise QB. The good thing is the Colts will have the capital to move up in the draft to get someone. The second round pick they got from the Redskins will be very high, likely in the mid 30s.
        Last edited by hoosierguy; 10-07-2019, 01:16 PM.


        • Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I'm not going to lie... As I watch Q and the O line opening holes, protecting the QB, and getting raves from the announcers I can't help but hope Luck is sitting at home thinking "What did I do!??"
          The same when Mack is running for 100+ yards and accolades coming his way. The same when the backups go out there and do their speed runs thru those holes. Also, right there with the same as the coaches prepare and manage a good/great game.
          And lastly, as Jacoby plays solidly and begins to get accolades from the announces and the narrative changes from "They're going to miss Luck" to "Jacoby has come in and not missed a beat with what the Colts are wanting and needing to do".
          Tonight was perfect... stealing the spotlight on SNF from the favored KC Chiefs. By the end of the game, it was the Colts getting all the talk.

          I hope this continues and the narrative Irsay set at the presser with allowing for a potential Luck return turns into a narrative of "Why would we/they want him back? He's a quitter. He himself claimed to be always injured. The team has solid coaching, a great GM, a leader under center. The city and state is rallying around the team. Why risk all of that for a quitter?"
          I think most people have moved on from Luck at this point if the Colts were 0-5 it would be a different story but if the team is good who the players are don't matter here.


          • Originally posted by Bball View Post

            This post didn't age well...
            Nope! Nope it did not. But I'll take it!



              NFL moves Raiders-Texans to late afternoon in Week Eight

              The NFL announced a couple of changes to the schedule for Week Eight on Friday.

              The Raiders and Texans were scheduled to kick off at 1 p.m. ET on the original schedule, but the game will now get underway at 4:25 p.m. ET.

              Oakland and Houston will take the place of a matchup between the Broncos and Colts. The were set to play in that late afternoon slot, but will now get underway at 1 p.m. ET.

              Both games are set to air on CBS, which has the doubleheader that week and will also be carrying the Browns’ visit to the Patriots in the 4:25 p.m. window in Week Eight. The Cleveland-New England game is set to be the lead national game.


              • I think that's fair. Colts-Broncos isn't nearly as appealing
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                • I prefer it I rather watch the Colts at 1 PM personally


                  • Surprised this wasn't bigger news... I know he's trying to be a hype man but at least make it more believable.



                      Colts nearly drafted CB Champ Bailey in 1999

                      Leading up to the draft, current Broncos head coach Vic Fangio served as the Colts defensive coordinator from 1999-2001. He was pounding the table for the Colts to draft Bailey, and it nearly happened.

                      "He almost was an Indianapolis Colt back in 1999," Fangio said of Bailey to Denver media on Friday. "I was with the Colts then, I had just gotten there. They had been very bad on defense the prior two years, I think finishing last or second-to-last each year. So part of the negotiation to go there - they promised me everything would be for the defense in the offseason."

                      However, the Colts wound up making the trade of Marshall Faulk to the Rams, setting the table for Indy to take Peyton Manning's longtime running mate in Edgerrin James.

                      "So after going through the draft prospects - I think we had the fourth pick - it was Champ who I wanted and we were going to get. You know, it was pretty set in stone who one, two and three were going to be," Fangio said. "And then a day before the draft, they came in and tell me they just traded Marshall Faulk to the Rams - which, you know how big he was with the Rams in their run there - and now we need a running back, so we weren't going to draft Champ."

                      Bailey went on to be a Hall of Fame cornerback. He earned 12 Pro Bowl selections throughout his career and would have been a stellar piece to add to the defense following a 3-13 season.

                      James was a strong selection as well. He went on to be the Offensive Rookie of the Year en route to four Pro Bowl selections. He's one of the greatest statistical running backs of all-time.

                      It's an interesting story and if Fangio had his way with the pick in 1999, Bailey would have been a Colt.


                      • Houston is going to be a tough, tough game. That Tunsil trade is turning out to be a smart decision, and giving Watson time to throw is dangerous, especially with those receivers he has. I think Houston has more top-end talent than we do, but I think we have the better coaching staff and FO. We're not quite there with the star power, but man have we become a tough team. This is going to be close...I think Houston wins in the end, though.

                        Colts have a huge opportunity the next few weeks. Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh, Dolphins, Jags. All winnable games. I think 3-2 is most likely, but 4-1 is doable. This is going to be fun.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                        • I really want the win vs. Denver. Mainly for bragging rights. So if Colts lose this Sunday, I won't be too mad. That means they'll come out strong vs. Denver.


                          • Originally posted by BornIndy View Post
                            I really want the win vs. Denver. Mainly for bragging rights. So if Colts lose this Sunday, I won't be too mad. That means they'll come out strong vs. Denver.
                            Bragging rights for what exactly? There's no real rivalry there.


                            • Wow, when was the last time we've had no responses during a Colts game?

                              HECK of a win by this team. Houston plays run D? We pass all over them. Hands off to the defense who played phenomenal. Gave up some big plays but limited them to FGs in the first half and with a huge couple of stops at the end of the game when the offense was struggling.

                              Colts offense through 3 quarters was superb playcalling and Brissett throws.

                              You can make an argument this is the 2nd best team in the AFC. Frank Reich, take a bow.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                              • Great win.
                                I guess I'm going to have to get used to the Colts' going for it on 4th down, even when it's clear they shouldn't by any normal metrics. Usually, I'm kind of OK with going for it, but today... with the lead... a long game yet to play... Play field position rather than gamble. That's what I would've done. But I think we all knew what was coming... And after being 7-7 on going for it, this time it didn't work. So 7 of 8 isn't bad....
                                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