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

Randy Moss to the Vikings?

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

  • Randy Moss to the Vikings?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl...ory?id=5653186


    The New England Patriots are in talks to trade wide receiver Randy Moss to the Minnesota Vikings, FoxSports.com reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources.

    The deal is being held up because Moss would have to sign an extension with the Vikings, according to the report. Contract talks have not even begun, a league source told Profootballtalk.com Tuesday night.

    A player source confirmed to ESPN Senior NFL Analyst Chris Mortensen that the teams are talking and are trying to get a deal done.

    "I don't know if there have been any discussions, but I can confirm that we haven't traded Randy Moss," Patriots vice president of media relations Stacey James told ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss.

    The seven-time Pro Bowl receiver is in the final year of his four-year deal with New England and has voiced his displeasure at his limbo status.

    "When you have done so much and put so much work in, it kind of feels like I am not wanted," Moss said before the season began on Sept. 6. "I am taking that in stride and playing my final year out and whatever the future holds is what it holds, but it is kind of a bad feeling -- feeling not wanted. It is not like my production has gone down."

    A few days later he apologized for the timing of his comments and said he loves playing in New England.

    But the Boston Herald, citing an unnamed source, reported on Tuesday that Moss wanted out of New England after a Week 1 win on Sept. 12, telling his agent to ask the Patriots to trade him.

    Although the Patriots crushed the Dolphins on Monday night, Moss did not have a catch -- the first time that's happened for him in a New England uniform. The FoxSports.com report did not specify what the Patriots would get for giving up their primary deep threat.

    Moss, 33, started his career with the Vikings after being taken in the first round of the 1998 draft. He led the league in touchdown receptions three times for Minnesota before heading to Oakland in 2005.

    The Vikings have been looking for help at receiver for quarterback Brett Favre, but they were unable to work out a deal for the Chargers' Vincent Jackson.

    Moss has only nine catches for 139 yards and three TDs through four games this season. That comes after hauling in 83 passes for 1,264 yards and 13 touchdowns last season. His career year came in his first with the Pats, when he caught 98 passes for 1,493 yards and 23 TDs.

  • #2
    Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

    holy crap... like a poster said in the comments at PFT, if Belichick does this he has balls the size of Jupiter.

    It is like the Richard Seymour trade if this goes down, in that they'd get value for a player they expected not to re-sign, but wow... Some reports are that Moss and Belichick had an unpleasant meeting at some point today.

    The Patriots already have Oakland's #1 and their own as well as Carolina's #2 and their own.

    Geesh... with the short term loss (this year flushed), can another part to the rebuild be worth it? One rumor is a #1 and a #3. That might be hard to pass up, and Minny might be sufficiently desperate, with this being the last shot maybe for Favre.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

      It would certainly eliminate the patriots chances this year. Perhaps they go after Vincent Jackson to replace Moss though
      PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

        This would be a big blow if Moss was the receiver he was towards the first half of last year, but Moss has either not been trying this year (and the second half of last season) or is having trouble getting separation. I think the former is more likely given Moss's unhappiness regarding his contract. In any instance, neither situation is curable by the Patriots (short of a contract extension) so it is probably best they move on. Belichick has probably seen Moss take enough plays off over the past 10-11 games to realize that he didn't want him around anymore over guys who wanted to be there.

        Was fun watching Brady and Moss play together while it lasted. Will be interesting to see if Brandon Tate can fill the void this year. I don't think it is likely. Moss playing at 75% is better than any WR the Pats have on the roster at the flanker position. My guess is that you'll see the Patriots go back towards their old dink and dunk passing attack down the field with the occasional deep shot to Tate/Price. With all that said, I don't think the Patriots have a good shot at winning a SB this year (they didn't even with Moss). The defense is too young and NE lacks a good ground game. Wouldn't want to play them in the playoffs though if their defense keeps improving from week to week. Could be an elite unit down the road.
        Last edited by Moses; 10-06-2010, 04:14 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

          Peter King just tweeted that the deal was done. Moss to Vikings for a 3rd round pick. I'd post the link but I'm on my iPad and that proves difficult. Either way I guess we can safely say the Pats are officially rebuilding.
          http://twitter.com/#!/makaveli1376

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

            3rd round pick seems low return, given Minnesota's needs. They could have milked it for more
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

              ROFL @ Moss going back to Minnesota


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                I wonder how Daunte Culpepper is reacting to this one. out of morbid curiosity

                That being said this is a good move for the Pats because really I barely noticed Moss existed for the last half of last season and the first four games.

                The Vikings still won't win an SB though but I respect they're taking the risk to go all in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                  A pretty savvy move by the Pats if true, though I think they bit too early if all they're getting in return is a third. Minny's desperate, I think they would've eventually given up a 1st. Either way, great thinking. Sign Moss, get all you were probably ever going to get out of him, and sell high before his value is completely shot. Nice.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                    No this is about what New England could have expected for Moss I think. No way Minny would have given a first for a player that isn't guaranteed to be there past this season. As far as New England goes, how do they keep getting teams to give them high draft picks (yes, a third is pretty high in the NFL) for players they are throwing on the scrap heap? Moss wasn't helping them now, and he wasn't going to be there after this season anyway. Getting a third for him is an awesome deal for the Pats. Pats rebuilding? More like reloading. Again.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                      This makes the Patriots lesser of an offensive threat. The defensive focus is gonna shift to all the dink and dunk passes to Welker.
                      Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                        Dink and dunk worked from 2001 through 2006, with receiving corps worse than what is left over after Moss leaves. The "just move the chains" strategy also keeps the D off the field.

                        The Patriots have at least 13 starters in their first 3 years in the league, with several more key reserves. I believe I heard it is the highest number of 1st -3rd year starters of any non-expansion team in history. Arguments that they squandered these draft picks by trading down are a little shaky.

                        The young-uns are:


                        starting WRs (now, after Moss)= 2nd year guys Tate & Edelman, plus vet Welker. Tate was a far better prospect then college teammate Hakeem Nicks, put hurt his knee and dropped to the 3rd round. Leading NCAA in return yards. After a "redshirt" rookie year, it's his time to shine. Edelman is elusive with good hands, a faster Welker.

                        Rookie TEs Gronkowski and/or Hernandez start. I'll just count 1 of them, because when they are both in there it is usally a 2 WR set. Hernandez as a rookie is near the tops in the NFL for tight ends as receivers. Not just among rookies, mind you, near the top among all TEs.

                        starting RB is Green-Ellis, in his 3rd year, granted, he got that spot by injury.

                        starting safeties are Chung (2nd year- think Rodney Harrison with much more speed), and Meriweather (3rd year, pro-bowler)

                        starting ILBs are Mayo (3rd year, future pro bowler, rookie of the year), Spikes (rookie, who knows)

                        starting corners are McCourty (rookie), Arrington (2nd year); with the 3rd corner and expected eventual starter being 2nd year guy Darius Butler

                        Rookie Cunningham just made his first start at OLB.

                        2nd year man Brace starts at DE and has been very solid.

                        2nd year OT Vollmer is a fixure at right OT and makes pro-bowler Light expendable after his contract expires this year.

                        so 13, counting Green-Ellis, counting Cunningham who may not stick as a starter, but not counting Butler (even though he will play in all nickel packages and 80% osf snaps vs. passing teams) and not counting both of the tight ends, even though they both play a lot and 2 TE sets are becomign the norm. Then you have other key contributors like a rookie punter, a second-year long-snapper, many backup D-linemen including part-time starter McKenzie. It may be impossible to win big with so much youth in so many key spots, but nobody has ever done so much rebuilding while never dipping below 11 wins.

                        Get your popcorn. It will be interesting
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-06-2010, 12:33 PM.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                          crazy tidbits that make you say Hmmmm....

                          Moss had nine receptions total for the Patriots in the first four games of this season.

                          He caught at least ten passes in a single game twice in his first four games last year.

                          The last 4 games are his low for any 4 game stretch of his career, in terms of catches and yardage.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                            news:

                            The Moss trade was precipitated by an outburst at halftime of the Dolphins game Monday night, where Moss had a very heated exchange in the locker room with the QB coach and acting offensive coordinator Bill O'Brien over how he was being used in the game.

                            http://twitter.com/mikereiss
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Randy Moss to the Vikings?

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              news:

                              The Moss trade was precipitated by an outburst at halftime of the Dolphins game Monday night, where Moss had a very heated exchange in the locker room with the QB coach and acting offensive coordinator Bill O'Brien over how he was being used in the game.

                              http://twitter.com/mikereiss
                              We shouldn't really be surprised. Moss has a history of doing this with every single team he has ever played for. I can't fault the Patriots for scheming him out of the gameplan though. If you watch the tape on Moss over the past 10 games, you'll see he just isn't getting separation and is taking some plays off. During halftime of the game though, the Pats were still losing and I think Moss just wanted to get the offense rolling again so it isn't like he was complaining about targets when they were up by 3 TDs.

                              I can't really fault Moss for being upset about his contract situation though. He is looking for his last good contract before he retires. If he ended up getting hurt while playing for the Pats this year (ACL tear, etc) his career would have likely been over and he would have been out millions of dollars. I wish him the best in Minnesota. Hopefully he gets one more good contract before he's done and can play with peace of mind again.
                              Last edited by Moses; 10-06-2010, 04:23 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X