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

Zak Keeffer doing a 6 part podcast series on Andrew Luck

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

  • Zak Keeffer doing a 6 part podcast series on Andrew Luck

    Apparently Luck spoke, but only off the record, but did give his blessing to anyone that wanted to participate. As for whether there are any revelations, or some speculation that has some actual teeth and substance behind them for a narrative that might stick... who knows?
    I suppose, with Luck speaking off the record, that at least gives this podcast the ability to present things that line up with what Luck said and to disregard things that Luck might've confirmed as wrong. ASSUMING speaking off the record didn't just mean discussing whether he would or would not participate in the podcast and they didn't address whether there was truth to anything or talk about ANSWERS to questions. Only discussed what the questions would or could be.
    https://sports.yahoo.com/colts-repor...135130924.html
    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

  • #2
    Listned to this last week. Basically just a "history of the colts" from Manning to when Luck retired, with obvious Emphasis on the Luck Years.

    Interesting to remind myself of those times, but definetely nothing new was learned. Reaffirmed my thought the Bob Kravitz thinks of himself as some sort of genius journalistic savant who everyone is out to get because of his scoops. Glad he's no longer our local guy.


    Carmel HS Class of 2011

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah - it's pretty rare for anything 'new' to come out in these. What happened - happened, he answered questions at the time, he's moved on with his life quite well.

      A lot of the fans tho, are still holding on to it all.

      Oh - and Kravitz - what a noob. His next 'as first reported by', WILL be his first.
      Last edited by PacerDude; 08-03-2022, 04:33 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well... that's pretty disappointing to hear.
        It is what it is of course, but there was so much mystery surrounding Luck, his shoulder 'injury', the rehab, the missed season, the 'return', and then the extra mysterious 'injury' that led (allegedly) to his retirement. That last 'injury' didn't 'appear' to be the kind of thing that would've disrupted any other NFL starting QB. Let alone, one of the star QB's. If there was really an injury at all in that final off season.

        There's still a story to be told as far as who knew what and when, versus what was said. When did he REALLY first tell the Colts he was considering retirement? Was his comeback season his own idea, or due to an offer he couldn't refuse by the Colts to pay him even if he still wanted to retire after that season? How 'bad' was that last 'injury', or did it not exist at all?

        No other high level NFL QB retires at 29yrs old from the circumstances that publicly surrounded Luck. They hang on until they can't do it any longer. Surgeries. Rehab. Changing doctors. Changing teams. Sometimes willing to take a backup role just to keep in the game. But was there something else, medically? Mentally? A grudge?

        Losing the love for the game and competition is perfectly fine... but it's odd amongst his peers. And it still doesn't explain the way things were handled those last few years.

        High level QB's don't just quit... yet Luck did.
        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


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Well... that's pretty disappointing to hear.
          It is what it is of course, but there was so much mystery surrounding Luck, his shoulder 'injury', the rehab, the missed season, the 'return', and then the extra mysterious 'injury' that led (allegedly) to his retirement. That last 'injury' didn't 'appear' to be the kind of thing that would've disrupted any other NFL starting QB. Let alone, one of the star QB's. If there was really an injury at all in that final off season.

          There's still a story to be told as far as who knew what and when, versus what was said. When did he REALLY first tell the Colts he was considering retirement? Was his comeback season his own idea, or due to an offer he couldn't refuse by the Colts to pay him even if he still wanted to retire after that season? How 'bad' was that last 'injury', or did it not exist at all?

          No other high level NFL QB retires at 29yrs old from the circumstances that publicly surrounded Luck. They hang on until they can't do it any longer. Surgeries. Rehab. Changing doctors. Changing teams. Sometimes willing to take a backup role just to keep in the game. But was there something else, medically? Mentally? A grudge?

          Losing the love for the game and competition is perfectly fine... but it's odd amongst his peers. And it still doesn't explain the way things were handled those last few years.

          High level QB's don't just quit... yet Luck did.
          yeh, i also wonder when he was telling the colts about planning to retire. i will say though, that his body had seen quite a bit of punishment by the time he was 29. and a fair amount was of his own making by holding onto the ball too long and sometimes running when he should have stayed in the pocket. but, he also took a terrible beating because of Grigson's incompetence by not making a good o-line a top priority early on.
          even though the mainstream media tried to dump on colts fans, i can't really blame them for booing like they did. they had been lied to and were completely blindsided by the abrupt retirement and I suspect many were just booing out of frustration for getting treated like suckers by ownership.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by clownskull View Post

            yeh, i also wonder when he was telling the colts about planning to retire. i will say though, that his body had seen quite a bit of punishment by the time he was 29. and a fair amount was of his own making by holding onto the ball too long and sometimes running when he should have stayed in the pocket. but, he also took a terrible beating because of Grigson's incompetence by not making a good o-line a top priority early on.
            even though the mainstream media tried to dump on colts fans, i can't really blame them for booing like they did. they had been lied to and were completely blindsided by the abrupt retirement and I suspect many were just booing out of frustration for getting treated like suckers by ownership.
            I think he was planning on retiring before the 2018 season but they were able to talk him out of it. My guess is Irsay told him to keep his retirement quiet until ticket sales were final and in return he can keep his bonus. Luck was in on it as well $$$

            Comment


            • #7
              You folks might want to dig around for a little info before making statements like some of these.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                You folks might want to dig around for a little info before making statements like some of these.
                If you have some info, might as well spill it here. Not doing any good not sharing it, especially if it's allegedly 'known' info, yet there are Colts fans here that apparently don't know it.

                Unless you're just referring to the snowboarding angle in all of this.
                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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bball View Post

                  If you have some info, might as well spill it here. Not doing any good not sharing it, especially if it's allegedly 'known' info, yet there are Colts fans here that apparently don't know it.

                  Unless you're just referring to the snowboarding angle in all of this.
                  Pretty much. I was never under the impression that Luck was that into football he was good at it and went with it but he seemed too well rounded to just be a "football guy" like I see him handling retirement a lot better than someone like Tom Brady ever could. Which is fine but not good for the Colts if they wanted a long term franchise QB.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, to start with, Luck was smart enough to know that his previous injuries (or at least some of them) were at risk of reoccuring, The ab tear, the kidney issue ........ Not something he cared to risk going through again. He often talked about hating always being in rehab mode during the off season.

                    Also, from what I've read and heard on local broadcasts, he wanted to retire prior to training camp, but Irsay and others in the org talked him into giving training camp a shot and seeing how he felt. Well, then things leaked out and the rest is history.

                    Now - I'm not saying that what I heard/read is 100% correct - but it's a lot better than the assumptions some people make. And I firmly believe that if Grigson had put a better line in front of him, he'd still be wearing the blue.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Really sucks for the Colts. Luck was a sure fire Hall of Famer.

                      He was just entering his prime. With quarterbacks playing so many years these days, we would of had him for a long time. I'm pretty confident he'd have got us a couple of Super Bowl Rings.

                      He was really good. I had him top 5 the moment be stepped on a NFL field. After his first couple of years I wouldn't have traded him for anyone. What could have been.
                      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                        Also, from what I've read and heard on local broadcasts, he wanted to retire prior to training camp, but Irsay and others in the org talked him into giving training camp a shot and seeing how he felt. Well, then things leaked out and the rest is history.
                        That's what he should've done in the first place which confirms what I suspected he didn't suddenly up and retire he thought about this for a long time and the Colts were desperately trying to convince someone who was mentally checked out to stay. I don't care that he retired he had his reasons but his timing was garbage and if it was a QB that people/media hated he would be dragged for it and the fans wouldn't be treated as villains for their legitimate real time reaction to the whole thing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          but his timing was garbage.... .
                          So, you do realize that the timing wasn't his fault ??

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                            So, you do realize that the timing wasn't his fault ??
                            How so? He could've retired whenever he wanted and told the Colts to screw off. That the Colts offered money and pleas to wait, and he took them up on it, still means it was his own fault this dragged out like it did. Unless he really wasn't certain on what to do. But if his mind was made up, then I can't see how allowing this to be strung out can be anyone's fault but his own. Obviously, the Colts might be complicit in bending over backwards and refusing to take "I wanna retire" as an answer, but ultimately, if Luck's mind was made up, that's the day he could've announced and ended the charade and nobody could've stopped him. So that is still where the buck stops, unless there's a missing piece of this.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Like someone said at the start of this thread:

                              A lot of the fans tho, are still holding on to it all.


                              Like you've never had that girlfriend that you wanted to end it with, she throws you one in a last ditch effort to keep things going, you hang on for a day or 3 and then say - Nah - I gotta get out of this.

                              Nothing different here.
                              Last edited by PacerDude; 08-27-2022, 10:52 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X