If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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
And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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.
I tried this a few weeks back, didn't go over to well. But Andrew Luck has yet to impress me. Like Schaub, he needs every part of his team to be working extremely well to keep it close & give them a chance.
Today is not that day. We've got problems of our own, nuy keenum is shining like a...
this was oddly satisfying to read. Oh the stupidity...
How many times does Luck need to lead the Colts back from behind, by opening up the playbook and allowing him to make plays with his arm, before Pep figures out that it might be a better idea to open it up a bit from the start of the game instead of waiting until he's forced to do it?
My guess is that if you open the game throwing the ball, the running game would actually end up being more effective as the defenses play more conservative coverages. You have more opportunity for draw plays and single back runs which would allow the running game to get going.
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
I tried this a few weeks back, didn't go over to well. But Andrew Luck has yet to impress me. Like Schaub, he needs every part of his team to be working extremely well to keep it close & give them a chance.
Today is not that day. We've got problems of our own, nuy keenum is shining like a...
this was oddly satisfying to read. Oh the stupidity...
Liked this one. Really put things in prospective.
"Luck was behind the 8ball the whole game. He's on the road, w/o his #1 receiver, w/o a productive running game, behind a bad pass protection, playing in a bad system. If Luck had better stats than Keenum had, Luck should be in the hall of fame right now. But all he did was throw 3 tds, 0 int, 271 yds and another 4th comeback win. Yeah, Keenum is the unanimous baller."
Shouldn't go unnoticed how excellent was that throw from Luck to Fleener for the 2point conversion and what an excellent catch by Coby. It was thrown into double coverage near the sideline yet it was the perfect spot not to be intercepted. I think Collinsworth said "Oh my Gosh" or something.
Hilton obviously did what we needed him to do. He must play like a reliable #1 receiver for the rest of the season, and he certainly got off to a great start. His speed is just unbelievable. The long touchdown reminded me of that play against Denver that was inches away from being a TD after it was deflected. This guy is going to make a big name for himself down the stretch this season.
Outside of Hilton, I think that Fleener is going to be our most important receiving threat, not DHB. He had a few big catches and also had the crucial two point conversion. On the missed two point conversion, he was actually wide open, but Luck just didn't look his way. I think that this guy is going to be huge for us down the stretch. I look forward to next year when Allen is healthy and we can run some nice two TE sets. It's a shame that guy got hurt.
Whalen was bad for most of the game, but that crucial fourth quarter catch was HUGE.
The defense obviously gave up a few inexcusable big plays and Vontae was bad, but they did come up with some big stops at crucial times. They held them to 3 points in the second half. Obviously the awful FG kicker helped, but we kept them out of the end zone. In a hostile environment, we allowed 24 points against an opponent that treats games against us like it's the Super Bowl. I'll take it.
Luck is just ridiculous. As TraderJoe said, I can't think of another athlete who has lived up to the hype like this. No matter how awful he looked in the first half, and he indeed looked awful, you always knew that we'd have a chance in the second half with him. The best thing about Luck is that like Manning, he seems to have a short memory. If he makes a mistake, then he forgets about it and goes back out there in the next series to do his thing. The long ball to TY was just beautifully thrown. I thought some said that Luck didn't have a deep ball? This guy really is going to be an NFL legend and it's just hilarious how absurdly lucky we are to go from Peyton Manning to Andrew Luck. Long suffering franchises around the NFL have to absolutely despise our good fortune. If Peyton wasn't having such a historically great season, then Luck would definitely be in the MVP talks. I still think he should be. The Colts have lost their HOF WR, two very good running backs, a very solid young TE, and their LG.....and yet all they do is keep winning. The quarterback is reason numero uno.
I disagree with some of Pagano's in game decisions and feel that he's too conservative at times, but I'm a huge fan of the guy from an overall philosophy standpoint. There's no doubt that the players are all in on what he is doing and have completely bought into the system. Arians was a great head coach for us last year, but there's no doubt that the foundation Pagano laid was a huge factor.
Going 3-1 in this SEA-SD-DEN-HOU stretch is just phenomenal. I would have been thrilled with 2-2 and was prepared for 1-3. Guess I should know better given who our quarterback is. If I could have picked any of them to lose, it would have been SD. I wanted Luck to get the win at home against Wilson, I obviously wanted the Denver win more than anything, and we really needed the Houston game for divisional purposes. What an incredible stretch of football. Losing is never good, but I do think that the SD game woke us up a bit.
Also, poor Texans. We just continue to torment that franchise. Two years ago they were thinking that their time had finally arrived and that it would be their division to own for a while. But it turns out that they were just keeping the seat warm for us while we transitioned quarterbacks. We are about to go on a division tear like we did from 03-10 when Peyton was in his prime. We'll be automatic every year with Luck.
Share on twitterShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
0
Posted: Nov 05, 2013 9:54 AM
Updated: Nov 05, 2013 11:42 AM
By Mark Berman, Sports Director - bio
Texans: Gary Kubiak is alert, coherent and in good spirits
HOUSTON (FOX 26) -
Houston Texans head coach Gary Kubiak has been cleared by doctors to leave the hospital today and return home.
Kubiak will probably not be available to coach the Texans when they play the Cardinals Sunday in Arizona.
He is expected to return to work next week.
Texans executive vice president and general manager Rick Smith announced on Monday Kubiak would be in the hospital for at least another 24 hours.
Kubiak was rushed to the hospital Sunday night after he collapsed at the end of the first half of the Texans 27-24 loss to the Indianapolis Colts at Reliant Stadium.
Sources confirmed for FOX 26 Sports that Kubiak suffered a transient ischemic attack or TIA.
In lay terms, a TIA is a change in a person's neurological status causing stroke-like symptoms that last less than 24 hours.
The Texans said Sunday night that Kubiak did not suffer a heart attack.
Defensive coordinator Wade Phillips ran the Texans in Kubiak's absence against the Colts and is expected to continue in that role on Sunday against Arizona.
Yea, it was ugly in the first. I hadn't counted them out, though. I know this is a game of adjustments... and Pagano and his staff seem to be good at half-time adjustments. Also, Luck is amazing at adjustments. I think this is why Indy is so adept at 4th quarter comebacks. And we weren't really "down" by that much... 18 points. It's down, but we all know how fast things change.
Also, Houston didn't necessarily outplay us in the first half by as large a margin as it would seem.... they scored 21 points, but 14 of those were on ******** drives after terrible calls by the refs. The missed roughing the kicker call; shoulda been our ball with a 1st down and instead Houston bombs a long touchdown a few plays later. Score never should've happened. Then the overturned Colt recovery of the stripped ball --- again, they scored a few plays later. We're talking a whole different ballgame if those two plays aren't missed badly by the refs.
I look at stuff like that when considering the second half. Yea, we looked rusty... but two looong throws by a rookie QB after ******** turnovers.... can skew the actual nature of the game. I do this when watching most games... if you look at the fundamentals and the small stuff, it can paint a better picture of a long-term prognosis than the actual scoreboard. Like... if the Pacers are down 20 points in the first quarter. I'll look at it closely.... often times I'll see signs. We played good D... we won the rebound battle... we had decent ball movement.... we just missed a lot of bunny shots and shot 20% of the quarter. You know that percentage won't stay that low, and you can turn to your wife and say "I bet we catch 'em in the 4th" and act all smart and stuff when it actually happens.
that was one of the all-time great comebacks in indy colts history. i would never believed a victory was possible after the 1st half.
Really? I thought it was possible especially since Kubiak collapsed that took all the energy out of the stadium. Then shortly after the Texans followed.
Comment