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

Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

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

  • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

    People like Luck because he kind of looks like Peyton? (your words not mine) About the only way they appear similar is because of their skin color, so I'm not sure how we aren't supposed to connect this to being about race.


    Comment


    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      People like Luck because he kind of looks like Peyton? (your words not mine) About the only way they appear similar is because of their skin color, so I'm not sure how we aren't supposed to connect this to being about race.
      Just like always you try to twist my words, yes he looks like Peyton, on the way he plays, on the way that he is kind of goofy, many people have said the same thing before, even before the draft but of course you are making a big deal about it. I'm done with this conversation by the way, I forgot were I was posting my comments my bad.

      Administrators feel free to erase all my comments if you feel like it.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Nope my comparison is that I believe that some people link RG3 with Vick just the same way some people link Troy Murphy to whatever power forward that shoot threes.
        Troy Murphy is a power forward who shoots threes...

        Comment


        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          See this isn't 100% true though either, Luck dove forward on the 3rd down play and the TD run against GB. Now under those circumstances we probably would all do the same, but I'm just saying it could happen. RGIII yesterday though proabbly should have just gone out of bounds.
          He had to dive for the first down
          Smothered Chicken!

          Comment


          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

            Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
            He had to dive for the first down
            RG3 did?
            Wasn't it early in the game? Was the 1st down that important in the game right there? I thought RG3 went out early in the game.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              RG3 did?
              Wasn't it early in the game? Was the 1st down that important in the game right there? I thought RG3 went out early in the game.
              I think he is talking about Luck.

              Comment


              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                There are plenty of stats that can turn the discussion one way or another. Sure you could use 3rd down conversion %, QBR and success within a two minute drill to show that Luck is better; but you could use turnovers, QB rating, and yards per attempt to show that RGIII is better.

                Both QB's have led game winning drives in the 4th QTR. Both guys have taken hellacious hits. (though it was AWESOME for Luck to get up and wink at Jerry after he got DRILLED--and bailed out by a lucky unnecessary roughness penalty) and both guys have impressed.

                I don't want my critical eye to be taken wrongly. I think Luck is VERY good. If i had to choose between the two, I'd choose Luck just because of his moxy and maturity. (he is the ANTI Diva) I just don't think it's as clear cut that Luck is the best and RGIII is just an athlete.
                I am assuming you mean passer rating?

                My response to this is that not all stats are created equal especially depending on the the competition that was faced up till now. This is what bothers me when people argue one over the other or try to act like one hasn't played better than the other. Get away from gaudy stats against bad team and numbers don't lie.

                Bottom line is that maturity plays a much bigger role on QB development than anything else. This is learning from the mistakes and going through your progressions and finding the open man. I don't think RG3 is bad at this but he hasn't proven much outside of putting up big numbers against two teams in the top 4 worse pass defenses in the league. I think he will progress but I always think his legs will be his crutch in the end and his full development won't be reached as a result.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                  Originally posted by CompACE View Post
                  I know this isn't what you're going for, but the way you laid out your argument, it sounds like you're linking running QBs with dog fighting (which is a huge and incorrect leap to make). That's the only other way it can be perceived other than racist (and I don't think that's what you're going for either). Like travmil said, I suggest not going further down this alley.
                  I'll back vnzla81 on this one. It at first sounded a little bad, but after reading it again, he was obviously talking about scrambler vs pocket QB. It seems everyone else is trying to make the connection scramber = black and pocket = white. And I agree with him, Indiana is probably not the best fit for Griffin, not because he is black, but because he is a scrambling QB and we are used to one of the best pocket QBs in history. If we drafted Griffin and he got hurt while Luck was playing great, even if Griffin was also playing great, there would have been severe backlash from fans, esp. with the departure of Manning. I think they are very close in terms of ability to win football games, while being a lot different in terms of style. I think we made the right choice, for reasons vnzla81 pointed out.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                    Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                    I think we made the right choice, for reasons vnzla81 pointed out.
                    I think we made the right choice because Luck is the better player. That's it. No merit is given to the scrambling or the racial overtones or anything like that. Luck is simply a better player.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      I think we made the right choice because Luck is the better player. That's it. No merit is given to the scrambling or the racial overtones or anything like that. Luck is simply a better player.
                      No kidding. To insinuate anything else is ridiculous.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Just like always you try to twist my words, yes he looks like Peyton, on the way he plays, on the way that he is kind of goofy, many people have said the same thing before, even before the draft but of course you are making a big deal about it. I'm done with this conversation by the way, I forgot were I was posting my comments my bad.

                        Administrators feel free to erase all my comments if you feel like it.
                        I just don't see the physical comparisons between Luck and Manning. Luck is physically much bigger. Luck is much more athletic. They maybe have slightly similar presence in the pocket, but otherwise the way they move is totally different Luck moves like a real athlete when he is out of the pocket. Peyton has moved like a wounded gazelle his whole career. Not trying to twist your words at all, just didn't see this comparison, if that's how you see them that's fine, but I don't see any physical similarities between Luck and Peyton.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          I think we made the right choice because Luck is the better player. That's it. No merit is given to the scrambling or the racial overtones or anything like that. Luck is simply a better player.
                          I always said that Luck was the better player RIGHT NOW but to me RG3 has the higher potential, so yes you are right FOR NOW.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I always said that Luck was the better player RIGHT NOW but to me RG3 has the higher potential, so yes you are right FOR NOW.
                            Imo, RG3 doesn't have higher potential than Luck, not even close actually. He has a lot, but not like Luck.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              I just don't see the physical comparisons between Luck and Manning. Luck is physically much bigger. Luck is much more athletic. They maybe have slightly similar presence in the pocket, but otherwise the way they move is totally different Luck moves like a real athlete when he is out of the pocket. Peyton has moved like a wounded gazelle his whole career. Not trying to twist your words at all, just didn't see this comparison, if that's how you see them that's fine, but I don't see any physical similarities between Luck and Peyton.
                              Luck is actually smaller physically, but not by much. Their athleticism and strength is nothing alike, though. Luck is a freak.

                              Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                I think we made the right choice because Luck is the better player. That's it. No merit is given to the scrambling or the racial overtones or anything like that. Luck is simply a better player.
                                I think scrambling plays a larger role in it than you want to give on. Even Polian said while they both have similar upside, he would have chosen Luck because scrambling QBs tend to get hurt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X