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 so far

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

  • #31
    Re: Luck so far

    RGIII is more athletic than Vick. The numbers pretty well bear that out. Along with being bigger and a more accurate passer. I mean the Vick vs. RGIII passing numbers are just flat out silly, Vick was terrible in college compared to RGIII who was pretty close to Luck.

    You gotta remember, I am not saying RGIII is better than Luck, I'm not even saying he will be better than Luck, I am simply stating that if both players reached their absolute highest levels I think RGIII's is a little higher, but I think Luck is more likely to reach his ceiling. At the end of the day, I think they will both be top 5 QBs in 3 years. And I think we will all forget about Cam Newton.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-25-2012, 01:05 PM.


    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Luck so far

      RG3 can't run like Vick. Don't care what the measures say, Vick in his prime was one of the most amazing running creatures on this planet.
      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


      • #33
        Re: Luck so far

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        I disagree about RG3's ceiling, I think it's way lower.
        Luck has a higher potential than RG3, but Griffin will still be a great QB in the NFL. Luck will win more super bowls though
        Smothered Chicken!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Luck so far

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          RGIII is more athletic than Vick.
          While it is true that RG3 is more athletic than Vick now, I think Kid Minneapolis was talking about when Vick entered the league.

          A lot of people have been acting like Griffin has the greatest athleticism a QB has ever had, which simply isn't true. Vick ran a 4.33 (to griffin's 4.41) and had a stronger arm.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Luck so far

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            RG3 can't run like Vick. Don't care what the measures say, Vick in his prime was one of the most amazing running creatures on this planet.
            But he doesn't need to in order to be a better QB. The less RGIII runs, the better QB he'll be.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Luck so far

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              But he doesn't need to in order to be a better QB. The less RGIII runs, the better QB he'll be.
              Here is what separates RG3 from Luck though and their ceilings. If Trader Joe thinks he has a higher ceiling due to his athleticism well that really boils down to running and maybe a better deep ball.

              In the NFL a running QB doesn't get you very far so how much does that really add to his ceiling? IMO not very much and in fact the way RG3 is getting used I see him getting hurt and taking away from his ceiling which is all about learning the game as a passer and not as a runner.

              RG3 is being used as their second running back with 32 attempts in 3 games. Not only that he has been hit 23 times while passing and sacked 9 times. Contrast that to Luck who has had 5 sacks and 15 Qbhits.

              I think everyone thought RG3 would have a better year do to the team he was on but its not looking like that and I still hold on to my prediction that he will miss some games this year as a result of taking all these hits. I think all this factors in on how he learns the game to his best overall strengths and not rely on his legs and as of right now he's being taught to rely on his legs and not just his arm. Ultimately I see that as a crutch that Micheal Vick never learned to stop using and RG3 maybe headed in the same direction albeit as a better passer.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 09-25-2012, 05:43 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Luck so far

                I think Luck and RG3 will each get about 5 or 6 wins this season.

                Redskins are 1-2 and here is the remainder of their schedule:

                @ Tampa
                Atlanta
                Minnesota
                @NYG
                @Pitt
                Carolina
                Philly
                @Dallas
                NYG
                Baltimore
                @Cleve
                @Philly
                Dallas.

                That's a pretty brutal schedule. I'd be surprised if they did any better than 5 wins. Everyone acted like RG3 was going to a team that was light years better than the Colts and that he would have a much much much easier year. The Redskins do probably have a better roster than the Colts, but they also have a much tougher schedule. I think there's a very good chance that the Colts win more games. We really needed that win against Jacksonville though. I'd be feeling so good about this team if we were sitting at 2-1 right now.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Luck so far

                  The Redskins could never run that wing T tripple option and I would be happy as hell.

                  That is all. You can now return to debating RG3 versus Luck

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by Merz View Post
                    While it is true that RG3 is more athletic than Vick now, I think Kid Minneapolis was talking about when Vick entered the league.

                    A lot of people have been acting like Griffin has the greatest athleticism a QB has ever had, which simply isn't true. Vick ran a 4.33 (to griffin's 4.41) and had a stronger arm.
                    Yea, and Vick was a much more dynamic runner, able to make sick stop and go's and change direction and shift and shimmy and all that jazz. One of the most ridiculous open field runners this league has ever seen. RG3 is more of a run really fast straight ahead until someone changes his direction kind of runner. VIck was also just plain faster when he first entered the league, he's the fastest QB this league has ever seen.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      Lol. I thought I predicted 10 wins. 12 is a reach at this point, but I'm still confident in 10
                      I see 8-8 with that loss to Jacksonville. I had them at 9-7 before the season
                      Smothered Chicken!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                        I see 8-8 with that loss to Jacksonville. I had them at 9-7 before the season
                        For them to be 8-8, they have to finish the season 7-6. It ain't gonna happen......
                        Last edited by OlBlu; 09-26-2012, 09:46 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Luck so far

                          Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                          Luck has a higher potential than RG3, but Griffin will still be a great QB in the NFL. Luck will win more super bowls though
                          I doubt that either one of them ever gets to a Super Bowl much less win one. The Colts went 36 years between Super Bowl appearances before Manning took them there. Luck is a glorifed Chad Pennington who cannot deliver a deep ball without hanging it up to be intercepted. The defenses will key on this when and if the Colts every become a factor. I think you could get pretty good odds against either of these QBs ever making the Super Bowl if you are so certain. You might as well make some money with that inside knowledge....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Luck so far

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            Luck is a glorifed Chad Pennington who cannot deliver a deep ball without hanging it up to be intercepted.
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6ItR71yEo

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Luck so far

                              You could link to any one of the great out routes he's thrown across the entire field as well to put this theory to rest that Luck doesn't have a strong arm.


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Luck so far

                                I don't care about that. I can about what I have seen. The two long passes that got picked off against Chicago that were underthrown and floated so that they were interecepted. He threw exactly the same pass against the Vikings and the receiver had to actually stop and wait for it to come down. Lucky that the defender stumbled or that would have been intercepted too and the Colts would be 0-3 right now. I did not see last weeks game because I was travelling and it was unavailable. But I saw enough of Luck's inability to throw that long ball in the preseason and the last two games to know this guy may be a decent QB but he will never be a big winner when he can't keep the defenses honest. The "most pro ready QB in NFL history" isn't even close to RGIII throwing the long ball. But, he really isn't close to RGIII anywhere else either. RGIII has a brutal schedule so he may not win many more games but he is a star already.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X