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

Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

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

  • #31
    Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
    Yet if he takes them to the playoffs....or wins a few playoff games, or lord forbid a miracle happens and the win a SB.....remember this thread in 5 years. Worth. EVERY. pick.

    Its called a gamble for a reason. But they needed to take one. They did.
    This trade will go down as the worst in the history of the NFL. THREE first rounders? Never been done before, first rounders are gold in the NFL especially from where the Redskins would be picking from the next two years after this. Craziness.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

      Originally posted by idioteque View Post
      The Redskins organization has been so bad for so long, I scoff at everything they do. When they picked up McNabb I told everyone he would fail and was castigated for it. We all know how that turned out.

      I am sort of a casual Redskins fan now that I have lived here for so long, the city is much more fun when they are good. They essentially gave up three picks as they are basically just swapping first round picks this year to get RGIII. I don't know enough about the guy to know if he's any good. But the Redskins trading away picks has done nothing but backfire for them in the past really. I don't really know what to think.

      That was also a risk...and one that failed miserably

      The Redskins made HORRIBLE moves under Vinny Cerrato, but the draft hsa actually been pretty good to them, even with that idiot in charge (Chris Samuels, Cooley, Sean Taylor, etc). they just loved trading draft picks, and for one they have picks to work a trade that may or may not be worth the risk.

      Though I agree, still dont know what to think / feel yet.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

        Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
        This trade will go down as the worst in the history of the NFL. THREE first rounders? Never been done before, first rounders are gold in the NFL especially from where the Redskins would be picking from the next two years after this. Craziness.
        Wow, so glad you can predict the future.

        Can you tell me the winning numbers for the mega millions tonight as well?

        PS. Its two first rounders. They swapped firsts for this year. Then firsts from 2013 and 2014. You can call it what you want now, but just like the people who said the Giants overpaid for Eli are mighty quiet now, I am sure no one will say a word in RG3 has half the career Eli has had so far. And if he wins a SB, it will go down as one of the GREATEST trades in Redskins history.

        PPS. The Redskins have SUCKED for the past 15 - 20 years. SUCKED. They had the SIXTH worst record in the NFL this past season. SUCKED. with ALL of those FIRST round picks that you claim to be gold, they have yet to find a franchise QB.

        Crazy is calling any player a bust before he even leaves college.

        PPPS. I doubt it will go down as the worst trade in NFL history. Pretty sure Elway for Mark Hermann was worse....
        Last edited by vapacersfan; 03-10-2012, 03:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          works well with their scheme is a understatement you couldn't design a QB who fits better in the Shanahan bootleg system. RG3 has a ton of Jay Cutler in his game and even more Aaron Rodgers.

          I dont blame the Skins he is a perfect fit and they maybe overpaid but in 5 years they will be happy they did IMO this is a smart gamble IMO.


          Rams did very well for themselves as well worked for both teams.


          there was 0% chance the Rams kept the pick it was way to valuable Justin Blackmon isnt worth 4 picks one being #6 overall
          Couldnt agree more. RG3 is legit. Shanahan will love this kid. He isn't as raw as some of you guys are making him out to be. He can throw the ball extremely well and is crazy athletic. He is an absolute game changer for the Redskins.


          Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
          You lost me at Aaron Rodgers. Only two QB Heisman winners have won the big game with the last being Plunket in 1970. Griffin is an option QB and ran the damn ball an average of 17 times a game. An option QB has never won a superbowl, not even the best there was in Mike Vick. I'm so sick of hearing Skip Bayless talk this guy up like he's the second coming of Jesus Christ. They had four home games all year and lost three of them. Outside of Oklahoma they only beat two other ranked or at the time, over ranked teams in TCU and Texas. Completely overrated IMO. Remember this post 5 years from now. Bust.
          He's an option quarterback?! Did you even watch him play? Yeah, he ran the ball a lot, but he also completed 72% of his passes, and has a beautiful deep ball. The kid is very very accurate. He ran the ball a lot because he had to. He was everything to Baylor.

          Do you realize how bad Baylor was before RG3? They were always at the bottom of the Big 12 and were pretty much a joke of a team. When RG3 got hurt in 2009, Baylor won 1 game without him. The next season they win 7. And this year he lead them to 10 wins. That is unheard of for Baylor. And its all because of RG3.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

            When I look at RGIII, I don't think of Cutler or Rodgers, I think of Vick or Moon. You not only have to cover the receivers and get to the QB, you have to also can't over run the QB, or he'll break loose for a quick 20 yards.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

              Great move for the Rams for sure. Move from 2nd to 6th an still get one of the players they wanted to take the whole time, while adding the 39th pick this year in a deep draft on top of two more 1st.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                I have seen lot of tape on RGIII also, and his only thing is not just being able to throw a good long ball, he makes tons of plays and is very accurate passing the ball, one thing that was consistent with him is that even though they did not always convert on 3rd down he was able to put together a lot of drives to help his team score throughout the game.

                He never quit on any games that I saw even when his team was getting blown out and that is a wonderful thing because that is a possibility no matter if he went to the Colts or the Redskins.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                  Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                  When I look at RGIII, I don't think of Cutler or Rodgers, I think of Vick or Moon. You not only have to cover the receivers and get to the QB, you have to also can't over run the QB, or he'll break loose for a quick 20 yards.
                  I am on the line of thinking he is more like Rodgers, he has more than enough speed but often stays in the pocket and tries to make the pass. Possibly more like the new Vick than the Old one.
                  Why so SERIOUS

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Whomever said it's only two firsts...redskins are sending three first rounders and a second for one first round pick...considering all of the needs The skins have, I feel like they are going to be pretty bad for another few years so thank you for those top ten picks!
                    Rams management

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                      Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                      Whomever said it's only two firsts...redskins are sending three first rounders and a second for one first round pick...considering all of the needs The skins have, I feel like they are going to be pretty bad for another few years so thank you for those top ten picks!
                      Rams management
                      how is it 3?? They are swamping picks this year not just giving away #6 and they get the skins next 2 1st rd picks

                      also the Skins have 40m in cap room when a lot of teams have to cut great players they can fill out their needs pretty well in the draft and free agency. The Skins have more picks this year than they have had in years.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                        Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                        Whomever said it's only two firsts...redskins are sending three first rounders and a second for one first round pick...considering all of the needs The skins have, I feel like they are going to be pretty bad for another few years so thank you for those top ten picks!
                        Rams management
                        Two picks plus swapping this yeas first...........So basically trading two future first

                        As for the top picks, the draft is a gamble for a reason. Some of the people Washington has drafted in the first round in the last ten years that didn't work out: LaRon Landry, who likely won't be back in a Redskin uniform. Carlos Rogers, Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey, Rod Gardner.

                        We will see how bad they are. If they even go .500 this first year, make the playoffs in the next 3-5 years, or win the SB, it will be well worth it. Thanks for RG3 and you can have our number 20-32 picks - Redskins management
                        Last edited by vapacersfan; 03-10-2012, 10:43 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                          Two picks plus swapping this yeas first...........So basically trading two future first

                          As for the top picks, the draft is a gamble for a reason. Some of the people Washington has drafted in the first round in the last ten years that didn't work out: LaRon Landry, who likely won't be back in a Redskin uniform. Carlos Rogers, Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey, Rod Gardner.

                          We will see how bad they are. If they even go .500 this first year, make the playoffs in the next 3-5 years, or win the SB, it will be well worth it. Thanks for RG3 and you can have our number 20-32 picks - Redskins management
                          20-32? Really? Unless you guys somehow get talent on the perimeter, I would bet a good amount the rams are a better team than the skins over the next 5-7 years...Patrick Ramsey was the 32nd pick of the 1st round...not exactly the top ten picks we will likely see in return...I hope the skins turn it around but they need to make a crap ton more good decisions to make that happen...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                            The Redskins for many many years have kind of been like the JOB Pacers: bad enough to be laughed at by most of the league and never make the playoffs but not bad enough to get the 1st or 2nd pick of the draft and snag elite, game-changing talent. If the Pacers had traded away a couple of future firsts for the rights to Durant the year he came out, people probably would have been excited and happy about it for the most part on the Pacers board. The Redskins need (a shot) at electrifying talent. We'll see how this gamble goes.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                              DG3,

                              I agree. But if RG3 lives up to the hype (and he has to start on day 1, has to) then yes, I think they could easily make the playoffs. They had Rex freaking Grossman running the show last year and they started off as a .500 team. They started a rebuild last year (minus the stupid McNabb trade ) and they damn near shocked themselves with how good they started off. Granted, they had a backup QB expected to run the show, and Rexy is just not a start QB, and I like the guy, but he is not.

                              Also, we still have the bulk of our drafts after the 3 high picks are gone and we have a great opportunity to meet several key needs in FA this year. It is an unusual year for having a lot of cap space and a huge and talented FA class. The FO had all this much in mind when giving what they gave.

                              For what the targeted player is intended to be, and rigthfully projected to be (never a sure thing but c'mon), it was a great deal for the Rams and a valid (I say very smart) move for us, and necessary to beat out stiff competition.

                              Two SB coaches wanted this guy very badly.

                              Lastly, the Redskins had a really good off season last year. They have real pros running things now, not Snyder holding his XBOX controller playing Madden and ESPN Fantasty football

                              DC,

                              I agree, and a great analogy. They have sucked for year, but keep winning the meaningless games. The number 6 pick is fine and all, but we weren't going to find a franchise QB.

                              As you say, its a gamble. But its one that is long overdue. Who was the last franchise QB is done? Sammy Baugh? Sonny? I mean technically Theisman is probably the closets, but his injury cut his career short...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Report: Redskins trade THREE #1s and a #2 for RGIII

                                Originally posted by Really? View Post
                                I am on the line of thinking he is more like Rodgers, he has more than enough speed but often stays in the pocket and tries to make the pass. Possibly more like the new Vick than the Old one.
                                His pocket presence is something he is going to have to be coached on and that O-line is pretty bad. Beck got saced 9 times in ONE GAME! Won a free weeks worth of condoms for it LOL.

                                My only concern is that RG3 is going to be injury prone like Vick and laterally he isn't that good of making people miss.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X