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

  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Wrong spot

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Damn, just read that Brady has won 9 straight against the Colts. Ouch. We haven’t won since the 4th and 2
    game.

    He was ragging on us yesterday by saying that our horseshoe isn’t very lucky lol.

    Guess we asked for it after “Deflategate”.
    Yes the last time we won was when Manning was QB which feels like a lifetime ago. During the early days of this pandemic when NBC Sports was airing all these old SNF games they reaired this one and I watched it knowing how it would end. This also reminds me of how while I care about the Colts and follow them its not the same for me as it once was either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Is Frank Reich a good coach because the Colts can hang with teams they have no business beating, before losing most of them... Or is he the reason they lose these close games at the end and the fact the Colts can hang shows the talent is there?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Damn, just read that Brady has won 9 straight against the Colts. Ouch. We haven’t won since the 4th and 2
    game.

    He was ragging on us yesterday by saying that our horseshoe isn’t very lucky lol.

    Guess we asked for it after “Deflategate”.

    Leave a comment:


  • D-BONE
    replied
    Originally posted by clownskull View Post
    We got the best running back in the game, a guy the bucs couldn't stop and we found a way to get him the ball 16 times.
    They did shut him down the initial drives of the game. At that point, I think the go against the grain / take what they give you approach worked fantastically for the remainder of the half.

    I think coming out in the second half, however, they should've been more intentional in getting him involved and establishing more balance offensively. Their defense was on the field a long time by halftime, so I think Taylor could have had success in the 3rd qtr mixed in with some passing, if for no other reason than they were tired. That was, I think, a primary reason he found so little resistance when they finally went to him late in the 4th.

    Leave a comment:


  • D-BONE
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Crazy that this could be a 9-3 or 8-4 team if we executed better.

    The difference between being mediocre and very good in the NFL often comes down to a handful of plays. A few mistakes can break a season.

    But you are what your record says you are. The maddening part is that it could be....it should be.....so much better.
    Just like this should have been a 2nd round playoff team last year (yet found a way to lose an eminently winnable game at Buffalo)? When does this become a theme under Reich? I don't think this season, but one more might be enough to conclude that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Crazy that this could be a 9-3 or 8-4 team if we executed better.

    The difference between being mediocre and very good in the NFL often comes down to a handful of plays. A few mistakes can break a season.

    But you are what your record says you are. The maddening part is that it could be....it should be.....so much better.

    Leave a comment:


  • clownskull
    replied
    We got the best running back in the game, a guy the bucs couldn't stop and we found a way to get him the ball 16 times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Just got back into town from vacation and missed the game. Clearly I didn't miss much and went as expected. If anything the Titans loss was the worst of the season then the Ravens one.

    I say this is the 3rd worse loss.

    I do agree this team needs an OC to call the plays and not Frank. I think while Wentz is good he does make some boneheaded mistakes and I think Frank/Carson enable each others' worst tendencies.

    However you had to be delusional to think Brady was going to lose to the Colts.

    Leave a comment:


  • rimrattler
    replied
    You can't put too much blame on the D. Those turnovers are demoralizing. Only blame I put on Frank is not running the ball sooner in the second half. All in all turnovers have been their biggest issues in the games they lost. Pretty much have to win out now to make the playoffs I think. Looks like they will be drafting S's and CB's all 6 rounds in next year's draft lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I just can't help but think the Colts would be WAY better off with a real OC who actually calls the plays, instead of a HC with Maddenesque tendencies.
    Someone that doesn't think TOO much like a QB and knows the limitations of his team, and the strengths. And doesn't get too far from those strengths.

    But that said... you have to wonder about the Colts' D that seems to bend more and more as the game wears on.


    The D was a sieve on that last drive and allowed Fournette to kill them, but they got a lot of big stops against Tampa today. They were put in some really tough spots with the turnovers. There's just only so many times you can realistically expect a D to hold a Brady offense that is the defending Super Bowl champion.

    We lost the game on the turnovers. The miffed punt return was killer and that questionable end zone call that turned into a pick was bad. Wentz fumble was also brutal.

    We had the chance to open it up on Tampa, but we gave them too many opportunities. You just can't do that against the better teams.

    We are what we are - a talented team that can hang with the better teams and get leads on them, but just makes a few too many mistakes to win these games and cement ourselves as an elite team. If we win that game today, you can say us and NE are pretty much the hottest teams in the NFL. But we didn't.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-28-2021, 06:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • D-BONE
    replied
    I think it's safe to say that we will conclude the season thinking we should be a playoff team (whether we are or not). If we're not, then Reich and staff will have to answer to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • D-BONE
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I just can't help but think the Colts would be WAY better off with a real OC who actually calls the plays, instead of a HC with Maddenesque tendencies.
    Someone that doesn't think TOO much like a QB and knows the limitations of his team, and the strengths. And doesn't get too far from those strengths.

    But that said... you have to wonder about the Colts' D that seems to bend more and more as the game wears on.


    Yeah. I don't know about the D. It's not really realistic to think you'll shut down many teams and win with D these days. There were good series today, knowing a team as good as Tampa would get their points. And D definitely created TOs and at least a few series of positive field position on our part.

    That said, I do think this D should be CONSISTENTLY more resistant than it is against all opponents. Tough being down our top safeties but Paye, Buckner, Okereke, Leonard is a lot of talent in the front 7. Corners aren't all world, but you had your top 3 available today and Rodgers came up with an INT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    It's not surprising they lost.
    It's not even a surprise HOW they lost.
    Yet... the game was there for the taking and the Colts blew it in all the ways you would expect. But shouldn't expect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    I just can't help but think the Colts would be WAY better off with a real OC who actually calls the plays, instead of a HC with Maddenesque tendencies.
    Someone that doesn't think TOO much like a QB and knows the limitations of his team, and the strengths. And doesn't get too far from those strengths.

    But that said... you have to wonder about the Colts' D that seems to bend more and more as the game wears on.



    Leave a comment:

Working...
X