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

Colts 2021 Season thread

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

  • You can see,clear as day,in The Final 8 NFL Team Playoffs…you need a QB and Offense,who can score 30 or more in Regulation…and a Defense that can hold an opponent under 30!
    -Jim Irsay on Twitter

    For anyone wondering if Irsay had calmed down any after the Jax game...
    ,
    One thing about the defense is the other team can't score when you have the ball. But you can't keep giving it back to them, nor can you throwaway 3 points trying to get a TD when the score is still close, tied or in your favor. You can't keep putting that pressure on your defense, nor gassing them.
    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      You can see,clear as day,in The Final 8 NFL Team Playoffs…you need a QB and Offense,who can score 30 or more in Regulation…and a Defense that can hold an opponent under 30!
      -Jim Irsay on Twitter

      For anyone wondering if Irsay had calmed down any after the Jax game...
      ,
      One thing about the defense is the other team can't score when you have the ball. But you can't keep giving it back to them, nor can you throwaway 3 points trying to get a TD when the score is still close, tied or in your favor. You can't keep putting that pressure on your defense, nor gassing them.
      Note that he didn't say just offense, but QB and offense. With the exception of Jimmy G., every QB playing last weekend is in another stratosphere from Wentz. And Jimmy G. is still in another league.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • Apparently, Irsay had the same thought I had this weekend- "The Colts are nowhere near up to playing at this level of competition". The regular season is one thing, but by the playoffs, teams are focused in and bring their A games. Pretty rare to catch a team napping in the playoffs. You might get lucky and get a team that doesn't deserve to be there in the early round, or is the best of the worst, but other than that.... You best be ready 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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Apparently, Irsay had the same thought I had this weekend- "The Colts are nowhere near up to playing at this level of competition". The regular season is one thing, but by the playoffs, teams are focused in and bring their A games. Pretty rare to catch a team napping in the playoffs. You might get lucky and get a team that doesn't deserve to be there in the early round, or is the best of the worst, but other than that.... You best be ready to go.
          Yeah, once you get to the Divisional Round, it’s only the legit teams that are left. The difference between these teams and teams like the Colts is huge. Even a playoff team like the Patriots (can’t score, overrated defense) is way off the level of the teams that were in the Divisional Round.

          But you give the Colts a quarterback and they are right there. Put Josh Allen on the Colts and they are contending for an AFC Championship. Easier said than done though. We might be looking for a long time.

          Luck retiring set us back years. We had the one high level quarterback who wanted to quit at age 30. When else do you ever see anything like that?
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-26-2022, 09:55 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

            Luck retiring set us back years. We had the one high level quarterback who wanted to quit at age 30. When else do you ever see anything like that?
            I get it's Luck's life and he can do what he wants... But, it's just unbelievable that a high level, starting QB, would walk away like Luck did. Obviously, in hindsight (and even at the time) there were some strange things going on with Luck those last couple of years that might've been signs of this. IF Luck really was injured heading into training camp and the preseason he retired, it was clearly minor.

            And Luck gave no signs of not having a competitive spirit.

            Look at the QB's that have fought thru big injuries, multiple injuries, to get back on the field. Played injured. Even those that aged out but didn't want to give it up. Alex Smith nearly lost his leg and he still wanted (and did) make a comeback. Brady had his knee blown out and came back to win SB's and play into his 40's... even winning a SB on a bad knee at age 43 (or was he 44 at the time?). Brees had his shoulder fixed, much like Luck, and played at a high level for many years, including a SB win.
            Manning himself and his knee issue and later the neck issue. Nobody would've blamed him for retiring then and there rather than striving to come back.
            Rodgers has broken his collarbone at least once.
            Montana was injured, missed time and replaced by Young, and so he went to the Chiefs where he still played at a high level before finally retiring.
            Mahomes had his kneecap dislocated and he came back after a few games.
            Burrows blew out his knee last season, and he's in the AFCCG this weekend.
            Unitas and Namath played until they couldn't do it any longer.

            Many of these guys that reach starting status, but time or injuries rob them of their games, still hang around, hopping from team to team, even playing backup roles, just to stay in the game.
            The list goes on and one.

            But not Andrew Luck.

            All of the above is why you could understand the Colts being shocked by Luck's move. Even IF he'd already warned them he was planning it (and I personally think he did), they can probably be excused just because NOBODY does that. You'd have to think he just needed some time to realize he misses the competition, the teammates, the game itself, as training camp roars into action. But no.... Not Luck.

            Weird.

            Someone get that 30 for 30 going on this and let us know all those gritty details. Like when he first told someone he might retire early. What the Colts thought. Was that last 'injury' a smokescreen for giving him 'time' to decide (or change his mind)?
            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

            Comment


            • Bears are hiring Eberflus as HC.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Bears are hiring Eberflus as HC.
                Watch, he'll turn out to be a great head coach and turnaround players' careers and we'll be like "What???? We had this guy all along, even before we had Reich!"

                He was hired by/for Josh McDaniels to be part of his staff... In case anyone forgot that.
                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

                Comment


                • Sounds like half the coaching staff is heading to Chicago with Flus, including an offensive coach or two. Early DC interview candidates are our currents safeties coach and former Jags DC.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • It’s funny, we lost so many winnable games....yet Cincinnati still only won one more game than we did. But they are in the Super Bowl while we feel like we are in no man’s land. The difference of course is all in the QB -they have one of the best QB’s in the league who gets better every game while we have, well.....

                    9-8 even with a QB as bad as Wentz. I still feel like our team is pretty solid aside from that all important position. But it could be years before we find the right guy. We had the one QB in the modern era who was willing to quit at age 30. I really do think the franchise has tried as hard as possible to regroup, but let’s face it, Luck quitting set us back years.

                    Comment


                    • I keep seeing people blaming the receivers and the O-line... saying that's where the Colts need to upgrade, not at QB.
                      What receivers and O-line would look good with a QB like Wentz?
                      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

                      Comment


                      • I agree 100% with last two posts about Wentz. Clearly, there's no comparison between Wentz and the two SB QBs.

                        However, there is also NO COMPARISON between the receiving corps of the SB teams and the Colts. Both are quintessential Dick Vitale M & M-ers. Of all areas, QB and receiving corps are just hideous for us. QB is pitiful and WR is nearly as bad if not for Pittman.

                        Yes we've got a deeper, more talented RB room than probably any team. Yes, we've got a good (although slightly disappointing) O-line. But the other 50% of the offense is nowhere near modern competitive standards.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • I agree with a lot here - but let's not forget the abysmal shape that Grigson left this team in. That team wasn't going to be competitive for a while. And it's almost been a while. Let Ballard finish what he's started. Complete overhauls take a little bit of time.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                            I agree with a lot here - but let's not forget the abysmal shape that Grigson left this team in. That team wasn't going to be competitive for a while. And it's almost been a while. Let Ballard finish what he's started. Complete overhauls take a little bit of time.
                            The Colts, and Ballard, had the misfortune of a team following Peyton Manning with the exact perfect QB to follow Peyton Manning and build around... except for 1 flaw... He decided not play beyond age 30. What high level, starting QB just walks away from the game?
                            USUALLY, the one main thing that makes them a high-level, starting QB, is their competitiveness. The one thing that also makes it so they can continue playing long careers because they push themselves to be the best they can be at any age and point in their career, and work hard to get back on the field ASAP if they are injured.
                            But not Luck...
                            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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              What high level, starting QB just walks away from the game?
                              Getting the living crap beat out of you game after game, season after season with an incompetent GM that does nothing to address the O-Line.

                              You folks just need to let it go. And as for him 'screwing over the franchise' - he told them before the pre-season began. They tried to get him to change his mind. It didn't work and they were unprepared for it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                                Getting the living crap beat out of you game after game, season after season with an incompetent GM that does nothing to address the O-Line.

                                You folks just need to let it go. And as for him 'screwing over the franchise' - he told them before the pre-season began. They tried to get him to change his mind. It didn't work and they were unprepared for it.
                                Well, that would make sense if he quit before Reich and Ballard...
                                If he'd walked into the office and laid down an ultimatum and nothing happened during the Pagano - Grigson era (error?).
                                But he quit after getting a QB friendly coach, a new GM, and a respectable O-line.

                                So we're back to what high level, highly competitive, starting NFL QB walks away from the game at age 30?

                                Even if he hated the Colts and the time it took to make those changes, any other QB in his position would've demanded a trade so he could continue playing. Not quit football. So it still doesn't fit in the norms and is an outlier among outliers.

                                So, yes... He screwed the Colts.
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X