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

2022 Colts Thread

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

  • I guess that FG they decided not to take looks kind of important right now... Of course the butterfly effect and all kicks in if they HAD kicked the FG, but still...
    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


    • WOOHOO the season is over!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bball View Post
        I guess that FG they decided not to take looks kind of important right now... Of course the butterfly effect and all kicks in if they HAD kicked the FG, but still...
        One part of the butterfly effect is exactly why teams do go for it. Houston had terrible field position and the Colts ended up getting the ball in Houston territory to start their next drive and scored a TD. If they kick the FG the drive before, they don't get the ball in such good field position their next drive and might not have scored a TD.

        Obviously we don't know exactly what would have happened the other way. But that 20 yards of field position difference is a key reason why teams go for it inside the 5. It helps your defense out on the next drive to stop the other team, and then by extension helps your offense even if you don't get it. And if you do get it, you score more than 2 FG's!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

          One part of the butterfly effect is exactly why teams do go for it. Houston had terrible field position and the Colts ended up getting the ball in Houston territory to start their next drive and scored a TD. If they kick the FG the drive before, they don't get the ball in such good field position their next drive and might not have scored a TD.

          Obviously we don't know exactly what would have happened the other way. But that 20 yards of field position difference is a key reason why teams go for it inside the 5. It helps your defense out on the next drive to stop the other team, and then by extension helps your offense even if you don't get it. And if you do get it, you score more than 2 FG's!
          But it ignores the scoreboard. You've used clock and came away with zero points. You gave the opposing defense a 'win'. And you're still down two scores. If you make the gamble and score a TD, you still have to kick the ball away on the kickoff. So, you're only gaining 4 points and still have to kickoff. And you're still down a score.

          If you kick the FG, it's as close to a sure thing as there is, and you're only down one score. You didn't burn time on the clock for nothing. And you don't give the opposing defense a total win. At best they got a 'moral' win holding you to a FG instead of the TD.

          I get what you're saying, but I don't think that stuff really tracks situationally most times. Unless you have a team that is just high octane and overpowering, you just can't waste scoring opportunities and you always have to play the current situation and the scoreboard. IMO.
          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


          • Thoughts on Ehlinger today...
            He sure likes to throw high sometimes.
            His mobility actually gave the offense a lift today.

            Is there anything else?
            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
              Thoughts on Ehlinger today...
              He sure likes to throw high sometimes.
              His mobility actually gave the offense a lift today.

              Is there anything else?
              Only other thing to add is that it was flat out stupid to not give him several more games down the stretch. I don’t think he’s any sort of long term answer, but no QB can get in any sort of rhythm when they play two games in the middle of the season, are benched, and then play the very last game of the year…much less a young QB. The Pittsburgh game should have been the absolute last game that Ryan played - though I think he should have been benched after Philly when the playoff hopes were pretty much completely dead. Plus it was the offense’s fault that we lost that game.

              We get a nice pick from the losses, but I don’t think Ehlinger would have been able to win much anyway. But at least he could have maybe developed some sort of rhythm week in and week out so that we’d know more about him. There’s enough there to make you curious, but we still obviously need to add a new young QB.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                Only other thing to add is that it was flat out stupid to not give him several more games down the stretch. I don’t think he’s any sort of long term answer, but no QB can get in any sort of rhythm when they play two games in the middle of the season, are benched, and then play the very last game of the year…much less a young QB. The Pittsburgh game should have been the absolute last game that Ryan played - though I think he should have been benched after Philly when the playoff hopes were pretty much completely dead. Plus it was the offense’s fault that we lost that game.

                We get a nice pick from the losses, but I don’t think Ehlinger would have been able to win much anyway. But at least he could have maybe developed some sort of rhythm week in and week out so that we’d know more about him. There’s enough there to make you curious, but we still obviously need to add a new young QB.
                I'm not sure why the team didn't try Foles the first time Ryan was benched, especially when they still thought they had a shot at the playoffs if they could find a spark and turn things around... and eventually go to Ehlinger if/when Foles flamed out and the playoffs became more of a pipe dream than they already were. Instead they went to Ehlinger first, then back to Ryan (mistake), then to Foles, and injury forced them to go back to Ehlinger.

                It's like they did it all backwards and were forced to let Ehlinger play out the string.

                Then managed to do this in a way that neither backup got a true solid shot. And the Colts didn't get much of a read on either. Going to Ehlinger the first time would've made some sense if they thought he could develop into something, but tossing him to the side after 2 games, one of which he almost won and the loss wasn't on him, and going BACK to Ryan was bizarre. But the entire season was bizarre. This entire era, from Luck's shoulder surgery on has been bizarre.

                I do kind of wonder if Wentz used his position as QB and leader during the Covid era to create some fractures in team chemistry (intentionally or not). Maybe politics, or the politics of Covid and misinformation, poisoned the lockerroom and the fissures remained. The timing would certainly fit. Polarization leading to teammates questioning each other as well as coaching and management could explain some things because that's the kind of thing that could carry over. There could even be ardent Wentz supporters that didn't want to see him gone and were no longer mentally all-in on t.e.a.m.
                Maybe that's just some speculative reach, or maybe it's just a part of the puzzle that also includes Ryan too old and physically unable to change that swirling narrative, and Ballard not better addressing skill positions on offense (deep threat receivers... but with deep threat receivers comes QB that can get it to 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


                • If Wentz still has supporters within the locker room/organization, it’s probably due to the simple fact that he’s a significantly better quarterback than what they trotted out this year. Wentz - despite his many flaws - gave the team a chance. 9-8 with multiple other games that were winnable. We had a chance to make the playoffs. SHOULD have made the playoffs. WOULD have made the playoffs if not for the epic end of season meltdown.

                  It’s not that last year was great or that Wentz was great….but we COMPETED and I’m sure the guys in the locker room remember that we competed. Much better than being the joke that we are right now. If Wentz still has support - that’s why.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    If Wentz still has supporters within the locker room/organization, it’s probably due to the simple fact that he’s a significantly better quarterback than what they trotted out this year. Wentz - despite his many flaws - gave the team a chance. 9-8 with multiple other games that were winnable. We had a chance to make the playoffs. SHOULD have made the playoffs. WOULD have made the playoffs if not for the epic end of season meltdown.

                    It’s not that last year was great or that Wentz was great….but we COMPETED and I’m sure the guys in the locker room remember that we competed. Much better than being the joke that we are right now. If Wentz still has support - that’s why.
                    That's ultimately what I meant... Had Ryan been physically able to zip the ball downfield, dodge the rush and make plays, and win games, any fissures created by Wentz would've been (likely) forgotten. But Ryan was unable to do that.

                    Anyone glad Wentz was gone would not get much sympathy or understanding from anyone that was a Wentz supporter. I picture a bumper sticker with Wentz's face on and a "Miss me now?" comment.

                    That could all happen without any 'hate' for Ryan... just an understanding that they could not compete with Ryan at QB because he just wasn't up to the task any longer. They could like and respect him just fine. Even want the best for him, but can see he's just no longer able to get it done.

                    Sadly, I can't imagine this season being any worse with Wentz, if he could've stayed healthy. But then again, if he was polarizing, maybe ultimately the end of the season last year says more about what we could've expected this season than the overall record last season. And him staying healthy was always a question mark anyway with the way he played. Still, in hindsight, giving Reich and Wentz one more year to fix it probably at worse is no different than where we are right now.... and maybe better.
                    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


                    • Watched some of Ballard's press conference and it's hilarious how he starts off with "I failed".

                      I still have trust in Ballard. He's done more good than bad.

                      Comment


                      • Unless Ballard was trying to warn/tell Irsay these problems were coming and Irsay kept saying "But I wanna try..." or "Let's do this instead..." then I don't know what the point of keeping Ballard is. The team is trending the wrong way. It's been a clown show more than anything of late. Bandaids haven't worked.
                        The fans can't be sold on Ballard so keeping him isn't going to get fans excited for next season which means a damper on ticket sales. Of course THIS season has been a pretty big damper on next season anyway.

                        It's kind of hard to change the culture if you don't bring in an entirely new vision for shaping that culture. Obviously, a new coach COULD do it, but a coach is still going to have his vision be filtered thru what Ballard brings to the team.

                        But then again, with the clown show it's been, maybe keeping Ballard is just another clown show move in a series of clown show moves.
                        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 BornIndy View Post
                          Watched some of Ballard's press conference and it's hilarious how he starts off with "I failed".

                          I still have trust in Ballard. He's done more good than bad.
                          I'm fine with keeping Ballard around I mean he was dealt a bad hand plus I honestly don't know who they could bring in to replace him that's better. Its far easier replacing the coach than him.

                          Comment


                          • The Athletic's mock draft has the Colts trading Chicago and taking Bryce Young. They have Stroud falling to Carolina who will move up via Seattle
                            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
                              The Athletic's mock draft has the Colts trading Chicago and taking Bryce Young. They have Stroud falling to Carolina who will move up via Seattle
                              I rather have Bryce Young than CJ Stroud but I don't see the Bears helping us out either.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                I don't see the Bears helping us out either.
                                Nobody makes trades to help somebody else out. But it's not a zero-sum game with a winner and a loser. Both teams want to reach something that they consider fair that gives them what they need/want. Some GMs are better negotiators for sure.

                                Teams are probably reluctant to trade within the division, no doubt. And it would think that in those types of trades the "are we getting better than we are giving" plays a part.

                                If the Bears want to trade the pick, they'll take what they think is the best offer for them.


                                You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                                All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                                - Jimmy Buffett

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X