The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

2023 Colts thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by dal9 View Post

    Teams routinely follow up with the league office for further context on calls with which they disagree. Colts coach Shane Steichen, who described the flags as "tough calls," said on Monday the team might take such a step with the NFL.

    Those conversations happen in private and are not typically shared publicly. But Irsay took the unusual step of sharing the details in his post, writing, "The NFL admits and understands that they did not make the correct calls at end of Sunday's Colts/Browns Game. I believe we need to institute Instant Replay for all calls, including Penalties, in the last two minutes of All Games."
    If they were ever to institute this: Do they only review all the calls that were made, or the calls that weren't made too? Is the booth watching for infractions to call if the refs on the field miss something?

    And they allow so much minor contact on pass plays now, how many would get overturned if a call was made anyway? -"We typically allow that, but since it was called... well... by rule... the call stands"

    Although that all said, it probably would not be a stretch to have a play reviewed as to whether the ball was catchable in the first place.
    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


    • #62
      Originally posted by Bball View Post

      If they were ever to institute this: Do they only review all the calls that were made, or the calls that weren't made too? Is the booth watching for infractions to call if the refs on the field miss something?

      And they allow so much minor contact on pass plays now, how many would get overturned if a call was made anyway? -"We typically allow that, but since it was called... well... by rule... the call stands"

      Although that all said, it probably would not be a stretch to have a play reviewed as to whether the ball was catchable in the first place.
      The NFL already did this once (I think it was the year after the Saints no PI call in the playoffs). It was an epic failure - but I personally also think the NFL wanted it to fail.

      Al Riveron (I think that was his name) was the head of officiating and like I said he wanted the replay of PI to fail. I remember being at Redskins games that year and it was comical - even the tv/radio announcers could not figure out which way the officials would lean when it came to the reviews of PI. If I remember right (this is all anecdotal) I think 99.9999% of the calls stood (or “nothing was found”)

      As you alluded to above - OPI and DPI will always be subjective. However, I personally do think there should be some threshold where a team (like the Colts, or the Giants a few weeks ago) could challenge a no call. It would def be convoluted (hello what is a catch and what isn’t a catch) but I think the NFL could make it work if they wanted.

      The bigger picture, IMO, is the fact that most professional leagues have these meetings with coaches/owners/etc where they say “yeah we messed up, our bad”. That is great and all but at what point do fans get that same level of transparency? (I know they say the “behind the scenes” rankings impact playoff assignments, etc. That is all find and dandy but it doesn’t help the fan base who sometimes genuinely don’t know if its a subjective call that didn’t go their way or a blown call by an official)


      • #63
        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        It didn't really matter in the end... but I question that timeout on the 2 point play. Whether Cleveland scored 2 or not was not going to hurt the Colts. Either way, the Colts were going to need to play for a FG with 15 secs on the clock. I'd rather have two timeouts in that scenario versus 1. If Cleveland getting 2 would've forced the Colts to need a TD, I would've understood it. They could NOT give up that 2. But the 2 only made it a 3 point game IF Cleveland made it. Inconsequential to what the Colts needed to do in those 15 seconds when they got the ball back.
        This is a common late game mistake people make. If their team is down, they tend to want to maximize the chances of getting to OT. But sometimes maximizing your chances of getting to OT actually hurts your chances of winning the game.

        If Cleveland misses that 2 point conversion, it basically doubles the chances of the Colts winning the game. Doubles! Because as you said, the Colts are playing for the FG either way. But the times they make the FG, they win 100% of the time if Cleveland misses and only 50% of the time if they get the 2 point conversion (because OT is basically a coin flip).

        Now, do I know if the timeout was a good call? I'm not sure. It depends on two things 1) how necessary it was. How much did the Colts help their chances on the 2 point conversion by calling the timeout? It's hard to tell without knowing how badly the defense was out of sync. 2) how helpful it is on the next drive.

        But saying the 2 point conversion basically didn't matter is not the right way to look at it. It didn't matter in the sense that the Colts were very unlikely to win the game either way, but if you're thinking about it that way the timeout didn't matter either.


        • #64
          Would be nice to get a home win today. Seems like we’ve just been awful at home in recent years. 1-3 this year. Frustrating when you remember the days of when we were so difficult to beat at home.


          • #65
            Defense sucks this year.


            • #66
              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Defense sucks this year.
              Makes you wonder if this will be Gus' last year? Shane Steichen may want his own guy in 2024.
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....


              • #67
                Levis looked really good yesterday for Tennessee. I know it’s just one game, but I’m worried that the Colts will regret not taking him. He has a cannon.

                Did something happen to Taylor?


                • #68
                  The Colts won and barely a reaction around here.


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    The Colts won and barely a reaction around here.
                    I think the back to back home losses against Cleveland and New Orleans really took the wind out of everyone’s sails. Beating the worst team in the league doesn’t make up for it. But scratching back to .500 against the (albeit bad) Patriots in Germany would definitely boost morale.

                    The season just felt lost after Richardson went down - especially once the Minshew honeymoon ended and he started looking more like a backup than NFL starter.


                    • #70
                      The Colts beat the Pats.... wow...
                      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


                      • #71
                        I wish the Colts had another RB to take some load off of Taylor...
                        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


                        • #72
                          I don't think it's gonna happen (yet), but if Belichick were to get fired after this game.....
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "


                          • #73
                            Positive: 5-5 after a 3-5 start.

                            Negative: we won’t keep playing the Panthers and Patriots.

                            5-5 is a solid record given what happened with Richardson, but I just don’t see how this team can make any sort of run at a playoff spot with this offense.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-12-2023, 10:49 PM.


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                              I don't think it's gonna happen (yet), but if Belichick were to get fired after this game.....
                              I would be stunned if they humiliated him by firing him mid-season. What’s the point? Their season is completely toast. Not like they can make an attempt at saving it like the Raiders when they canned McDaniels. My bet is that there will be some sort of mutual parting of ways after the season.

                              Ultimately the Patriots showed they are no different than the Colts or any other team. The shine can wear off of an organization quickly when you lose a legend QB and struggle to find a replacement. Obviously you need a complete team to advance far, but you’re going absolutely nowhere in today’s NFL without a QB.

                              It’s pretty stunning how bad Jones looked. He’s just totally collapsed.


                              • #75
                                Well, heading into the bye, the Colts have the same record as….the Bengals. Probably wouldn’t have predicted that before the year.

                                Plenty of winnable games if we could have anything resembling a legit offense. Plenty of losable ones too…