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 sign Luck

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

  • Re: Colts sign Luck

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Why do you think this line is soooo bad?

    Even last year the Colts weren't the worst offensive line by a long stretch. In fact if you look up the stats the Colts were middle of the pack as far as sacks and QB hits. So the only way your argument even works is if your predicting the new offensive line (3 more guys) to just fall apart and the only one that is even in question is Winston Justice IMO. McGlynn and Satele are both proven to be adequate starters in the league so that leaves Justice as the glaring weakness on the RT spot. But here is what you are not considering,,, Likenbach and to a lesser extent Reitz can slide over to the RT spot if Justice completely fails at protecting Luck.

    So you see the Colts won't be any worse than they were last year on the o-line and in fact could be even better considering injuries and the young blood they have brought in.

    SO lets break down your other dubious comment about how the Colts don't have a running game. The Colts in fact have a half way decent running game if you look at the stats from last year and the addition of Satele and McGlynn further help the running game IMO.

    Fact is the Colts ranked 15th in league in yards per carry but they simply didn't run it very often (ranked 29th in attempts). Colts fans everywhere know the reason why and it had to do with the defense and the terrible 3 as I like to call them (Painter, Collins and Orlovsky). They simply couldn't score points and the defense got worn down late in games forcing the offense to play catch up.

    IF your going to say that Luck will have more interceptions than Painter, Collins, and Orlovsky then I am sorry you simply don't know what you are talking about. The line was average with a below average Qb's manning the helm and Luck is an above average QB so I predict they will be just fine this year. In fact I think Luck wins rookie of the year to Jimmy delight and to your dismay.

    Edit: The real reason I think you like pooing on the Colts is becuase you dislike Jimmy's decision with Peyton. In a way I get that sentiment but being younger I am not so skeptical of change as you are.
    What does age have to do with that? I don't mind change. I do mind lies and complete stupidity. I do dislike Irsay's decision on Peyton and the football Gods are about to make him pay for that big time but don't worry, with the loser salaries and such, he will be lining his pockets big time. Yes, I think the offensive line is a complete train wreck. When you are picking up every reject in the league and signing arena players, it will be very ugly. Last year they had a couple of decent offensive linemen. This year, they don't have any who show much. Teams won't be able to wait to blitz this team and Luck is going to have to have luck to avoid serious injury. Think David Carr....... ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      What does age have to do with that? I don't mind change. I do mind lies and complete stupidity. I do dislike Irsay's decision on Peyton and the football Gods are about to make him pay for that big time but don't worry, with the loser salaries and such, he will be lining his pockets big time. Yes, I think the offensive line is a complete train wreck. When you are picking up every reject in the league and signing arena players, it will be very ugly. Last year they had a couple of decent offensive linemen. This year, they don't have any who show much. Teams won't be able to wait to blitz this team and Luck is going to have to have luck to avoid serious injury. Think David Carr....... ...
      Satele is a very solid center. Castonzo was good last year. McGlynn has proven to be adequate.

      I dont see where you get the idea that this line is a train wreck.

      This group is no worse than last year. Don kid yourself, Saturday mostly wasnt worth a damn at blocking. Good guy and smart player, but he just wasnt good last year. Most people think Satele is a very good center.

      By all means have your opinion, but I just cant figure out where you come up with the line as a trainwreck, because it really isnt.
      Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

      Comment


      • Re: Colts sign Luck

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        What does age have to do with that? I don't mind change. I do mind lies and complete stupidity. I do dislike Irsay's decision on Peyton and the football Gods are about to make him pay for that big time but don't worry, with the loser salaries and such, he will be lining his pockets big time. Yes, I think the offensive line is a complete train wreck. When you are picking up every reject in the league and signing arena players, it will be very ugly. Last year they had a couple of decent offensive linemen. This year, they don't have any who show much. Teams won't be able to wait to blitz this team and Luck is going to have to have luck to avoid serious injury. Think David Carr....... ...
        You come off like a crotchety old man who hates the fact that his favorite player is no longer on the team and you come up with reasons to forecast doom and gloom for the COlts because your are bitter. I think we all get that but you are making up reasons that are easy for any fan with access to NFL.COM to disprove.

        But go ahead and tell me how the 53rd man on the Colts roster is why I should be worried that the next 5 years are going to be losing seasons.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts sign Luck

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          You come off like a crotchety old man who hates the fact that his favorite player is no longer on the team and you come up with reasons to forecast doom and gloom for the COlts because your are bitter. I think we all get that but you are making up reasons that are easy for any fan with access to NFL.COM to disprove.

          But go ahead and tell me how the 53rd man on the Colts is why I should be worried that the next 5 years are going to be losing seasons.
          I am a crotchety old man and I do hate the fact that the Colts let the best player they ever had go. I hope I hear from some of you when the Colts drop those first eight games and Luck gets chased all over the stadium and it turnes out that one thing is certain. Andrew Luck ain't no Peyton Manning....... But I will get to see the master in Denver for another four or five years.... I can't wait until they meet the Colts in the regular season. I wonder if after kicking Indy's asses, he glances up to Irsay's suite and smiles or waves. He is probably way to classy to do that but it would be fun to see..... ...

          Comment


          • Re: Colts sign Luck

            Originally posted by Psyren View Post
            Satele is a very solid center. Castonzo was good last year. McGlynn has proven to be adequate.

            I dont see where you get the idea that this line is a train wreck.

            This group is no worse than last year. Don kid yourself, Saturday mostly wasnt worth a damn at blocking. Good guy and smart player, but he just wasnt good last year. Most people think Satele is a very good center.

            By all means have your opinion, but I just cant figure out where you come up with the line as a trainwreck, because it really isnt.
            Castonzo was hurt all last year and far from good but I will agree he could be. How do you know Satele is a very solid center? He took snaps last year? Who in the hell is McGlynn and where did they get him. Saturday was surrounded by inept linemen. He couldn't block by himself. Satele can only hope to be as good as Jeff Saturday. The line really is that bad. Check out the arena league player they signed this week. Players will come through that line like a hot knife through soft butter....... But, think whatever you want. After about eight games, we will see who is right and start talking about who the NFL number one pick for the Colts should be next year...... ...

            Comment


            • Re: Colts sign Luck

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              Castonzo was hurt all last year and far from good but I will agree he could be. How do you know Satele is a very solid center? He took snaps last year? Who in the hell is McGlynn and where did they get him. Saturday was surrounded by inept linemen. He couldn't block by himself. Satele can only hope to be as good as Jeff Saturday. The line really is that bad. Check out the arena league player they signed this week. Players will come through that line like a hot knife through soft butter....... But, think whatever you want. After about eight games, we will see who is right and start talking about who the NFL number one pick for the Colts should be next year...... ...
              You should know the O-line if you going to say they suck. Satele as a rookie in 08 started for the Dolphins at Center when they went 11-5 and won the AFC East Division. Thats with Chad Pennington as the QB.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts sign Luck

                Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                Satele is a very solid center. Castonzo was good last year. McGlynn has proven to be adequate.

                I dont see where you get the idea that this line is a train wreck.

                This group is no worse than last year. Don kid yourself, Saturday mostly wasnt worth a damn at blocking. Good guy and smart player, but he just wasnt good last year. Most people think Satele is a very good center.

                By all means have your opinion, but I just cant figure out where you come up with the line as a trainwreck, because it really isnt.

                I know you Indy homers don't bother reading anything outside of Indiana about your team. Have you read this article about who will be the most disappointing rookies this year? Guess who is on the list....http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-season/page/2 ... I know, I know, you guys don't believe in what experts say. How convenient......

                Comment


                • Re: Colts sign Luck

                  Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                  Satele is a very solid center. Castonzo was good last year. McGlynn has proven to be adequate.

                  I dont see where you get the idea that this line is a train wreck.

                  This group is no worse than last year. Don kid yourself, Saturday mostly wasnt worth a damn at blocking. Good guy and smart player, but he just wasnt good last year. Most people think Satele is a very good center.

                  By all means have your opinion, but I just cant figure out where you come up with the line as a trainwreck, because it really isnt.
                  And guess who is listed as one of the top five QBs? Hint: it ain't Andrew Luck. http://www.nsawins.com/betting/nfl/2...-quarterbacks/ ...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts sign Luck

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    And guess who is listed as one of the top five QBs? Hint: it ain't Andrew Luck. http://www.nsawins.com/betting/nfl/2...-quarterbacks/ ...
                    You have to be kidding. You call that a prediction? Have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until he proves he can't do the job? This is what you have to suggest that Manning will be one of the 5 best.

                    How about Manning proves that he still has it?

                    Are you seriously using this article to show that "experts" think Manning is still a top 5 QB? You're so called experts citations are a joke.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts sign Luck

                      Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                      You have to be kidding. You call that a prediction? Have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until he proves he can't do the job? This is what you have to suggest that Manning will be one of the 5 best.

                      How about Manning proves that he still has it?

                      Are you seriously using this article to show that "experts" think Manning is still a top 5 QB? You're so called experts citations are a joke.
                      Yes, all experts who disagree with you must be a joke. Well, I think all of the one's who agree with you are an even bigger joke.
                      ...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts sign Luck

                        Where I disagree with a whole lot of you here is that you have to suck to eventually be good. That doesn't work at basketball (see Lakers, Boston and Miami) or in football, see Green Bay, New England, NY Giants and Pittsburgh. They don't tear down like this completely where it takes years to get back to being competitive. They just keep on winning and winning and playing for championships. The difference is the owners and the management. The Colts don't have it and those other teams do. Baltimore is another to add to that list. What do we do? We dump arguably the best QB to ever play the game and jettison every veteran and bring in rookies and rejects to take their place. These other teams do not do that. They plan better. They draft better. They trade better and they get ready better. The Colts have gone all the way back to the worst Jeff George years (yes, he was the "can't miss phenom" of his age). Then you add that the owner lied to the fans about it and I will continue to watch just to be amused by you all hear when you start crying the blues about the eighth game or so...... Perhaps sooner.... ...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts sign Luck

                          The Giants didn't suck before they started winning? What? Thats complete ********. They were tied for the worst record in the league the year before they drafted Eli! Then they were only 2 games better the next year. The Steelers were a stellar 6-10 the year before they drafted Big Ben. Guess how good Baltimore was before Joe Flacco came to town? A blazing 5-11!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts sign Luck

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            The Giants didn't suck before they started winning? What? Thats complete ********. They were tied for the worst record in the league the year before they drafted Eli! Then they were only 2 games better the next year. The Steelers were a stellar 6-10 the year before they drafted Big Ben. Guess how good Baltimore was before Joe Flacco came to town? A blazing 5-11!
                            Baltimore was good before Flacco got there. Yes, the Giants went down when they drafted Eli and then came right back up. You will be dreaming about 5-11 after you watch this current crew show their stuff. I don't call those two records as tearing down the team and starting over. The Colts won two games last year. They might not win any games this year. I expect a three year total of about ten wins give or take a couple.... ...
                            Last edited by OlBlu; 08-04-2012, 10:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts sign Luck

                              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                              Yes, all experts who disagree with you must be a joke. Well, I think all of the one's who agree with you are an even bigger joke.
                              ...
                              Clearly this one is a joke because all he said was that Manning was good in the past and he expects him to be good still as if nothing has happened in the last two years. Hardly a testimonial but you grasp on to it as if this was an enlightened piece of information. If these are the so called experts you cite you are on thin ice.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts sign Luck

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                Baltimore was good before Flacco got there. Yes, the Giants went down when they drafted Eli and then came right back up. You will be dreaming about 5-11 after you watch this current crew show their stuff. I don't call those two records as tearing down the team and starting over. The Colts won two games last year. They might not win any games this year. I expect a three year total of about ten wins give or take a couple.... ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.
                                The Colts won 2 games last year because Peyton Manning missed the entire season and we stuck with Painter at QB.

                                In 2008, the Detroit Lions went 0-16. In 2009 they went 2-14. The next season they went 6-10 with their starting QB being injured. In 2011 they go 10-6 and make the playoffs. The Lions were horrific in 2008, worse than the Colts last year. Yet made a huge turn around and made if FAST. To say teh Colts will win 10 games over the next 3 years is a ****ing joke.

                                I don't know why I am even trying honestly. Its pointless to have a conversation with you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X