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

Colts 2021 Season thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • First - having Bruschi liking the Colts might throw the Earth out of orbit. He's usually really anti-Colts. So, they must be doing something right.

    Ball control. Best way to beat a team like Arizona. Unless Taylor decides to bust a few 60+ yard runs, keeping the ball away from them would be great. It's as big of a game as I can remember in recent years. Really looking forward to it. Last line I saw was AZ by 1. Can't get much closer than that.


    • Bruschi had to give props because the Colts basically beat the Pats at their own game: playing good defense, forcing turnovers, running the ball, and getting a huge game altering special teams play.


      • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I watched some of the ESPN Countdown crew talking about the Colts-Pats game. Moss, Ryan, and Bruschi were all gushing about the Colts. Ryan and Bruschi love how our defense plays and how disruptive we are.

        Think, now the Colts have turned into the ultimate ground and pound type of team.
        i just watch this team and think about what we could be if grigson hadn't absolutely crushed andrew luck's soul. imagining him with pittman and jonathan taylor behind this offensive line....god.

        they often talk about guys in sports who will "never have to buy another drink in a town". grigson is the type of guy who should always have to pay double anywhere he goes.


        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          That was an amazing win. Lucas Oil was absolutely electric. It just felt alive in there.

          Felt great to get a signature win against a great franchise like New England. Plus we sort of beat them at their own game by running the ball, playing good defense, and getting a big special team play.

          It's awesome to have a player like Taylor. Obviously we knew last year that he was a great back, but his explosion into the best skill player in the league has been one of the best surprises we've ever seen as Colts fans. This is just incredible to watch.

          You have to give credit to Reich and this team for always bouncing back and taking it one game at a time. We've had some tough losses, but they always come back the next week ready to play and never get too down. Reich deserves tons of credit for keeping them focused.

          I think Kansas City has to be considered the favorite in the AFC because of their experience and track record, but I'll pretty much take the Colts over anyone else in the AFC at this point. We've gotten two big wins against the Bills and Pats lately. None of the other teams scare me at all. I think we will certainly have our chances in any playoff game. Just comes down to the execution.

          I'm still really nervous about this team when they are in a situation where they have to throw it down the stretch. If it's 3rd and 9 in red zone during the 4th quarter of a playoff game, that's where I don't have a ton of faith in this offense. I really wish we had a reliable veteran WR who Wentz could depend on in clutch situations. Pittman is very good, but he is so young. We desperately need a gritty veteran alongside him who you could count on to make tough grabs. As good as Taylor is, we are going to find ourselves in situations during the playoffs where we have to make the big throw.

          It just seems like our WR's drop a lot of balls in key spots. Our depth at the position is pretty questionable. Ballard has built a very good overall roster, but that's one spot where we could use some improvement.
          Overall I agree with you but I have two concerns:

          1.) Wentz is a game manager through and through. I just don't have any faith if we fall behind.

          2.) I fear our defense is still potentially vulnerable to the big play.

          Those two things mean a game could turn on us quickly in the playoffs. Early possessions will be crucial.


          • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

            He’s an all time great Colts WR and can make a nice snag every now and then, but he sadly seems like a shell of his old shelf. I don’t think we can rely on him at this point. We need a vet who is still close to their prime of their career.
            He's too small and they don't really run him over the middle much anymore which I get because he's had a few knocks to the head and no one wants to watch him go lights out like some of these guys have in recent weeks.

            Overall Jack Doyle should be this guy tbh, but he's always been a boom or bust TE in the passing game IMO.


            • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

              i just watch this team and think about what we could be if grigson hadn't absolutely crushed andrew luck's soul. imagining him with pittman and jonathan taylor behind this offensive line....god.

              they often talk about guys in sports who will "never have to buy another drink in a town". grigson is the type of guy who should always have to pay double anywhere he goes.
              Football moves aside, seems like Grigson was a bag all around. I was watching a McAfee show clip on YouTube where he had Mathis as a guest. They more or less said Grigson changed the culture for the worse. Mathis told a story about how there used to be a painted mural in the complex that was a tribute to our history (ie it featured Unitas, Dungy, Manning, etc). Then Grigson came in and literally painted over it lol. Who does that? Mathis said that really rubbed him the wrong way.

              McAfee said Grigson always talked about “changing the culture here” and he quipped, “you know this organization just came off the winningest decade ever”.

              But here’s where you have to respect Irsay: he recognized Grigson was a bad fit and made a change for the better. Now we have someone in Ballard who seems very respected and has built a deep roster. Contrast this to the other franchise in town who lets management hang around forever. Grigson would still be here if the Simons owned the team.


              • With 3 starters of OLINE being out for tonight's game, it's gonna be rough. But , hopefully the Colts can win.


                • This Cardinal game is going to be a nail biter


                  • Why does Wentz refuse to dump it off to JT for the easy completion? I can’t believe the team is tied to this guy.

                    Name-calling signature removed


                    • For the love of....

                      Kick the F'n FG!!!

                      Geez I hate this schiznit!!!

                      I cannot stand Reich's inclination to call the game like a 15 year old playing Madden!!!
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden


                      • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        For the love of....

                        Kick the F'n FG!!!

                        Geez I hate this schiznit!!!

                        I cannot stand Reich's inclination to call the game like a 15 year old playing Madden!!!
                        The kicker is 3 for 10 from 50+ in his career including being short in this very game. Kicking the FG very likely just gives the other team 8 more yards of field position.

                        Truthfully, there was no good option there. Punting is never good from that spot. But the offense and the field goal kicker don't give much confidence either of converting.


                        • I'd rather see a missed FG, than going for it when a FG could take the lead and it was 4 yds to go.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden


                          • Wow. Wentz making some huge throws.


                            • We are a top 5 team in the NFL if we can execute the passing game. Great to see Wentz make big time throws tonight. Huge win. Great to see TY get some huge grabs.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-25-2021, 11:25 PM.


                              • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                We are a top 5 team in the NFL if we can execute the passing game. Great to see Wentz make big time throws tonight. Huge win. Great to see TY get some huge grabs.
                                I'm still trying to figure out if TY is mostly washed up and at the end of the line... or just under-used.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden