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

2015 NFL Draft Thread

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

  • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

    So I'm thinking Hilton isn't going to get paid by the Colts. Grigson might be taking the approach of reloading half your receiving core every other year, like the Colts use to do with Line Backers. Figure you have an all world QB who can make any receiver look good.

    Its a bizarre pick IMO. I get it though. Our WR and TE last year where inconsistent besides Hilton.

    They are relying a lot on Luck's toughness in the pocket.
    Last edited by graphic-er; 05-01-2015, 09:31 AM.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

      Collins 40 was slow. I wanted who the Pats got. We need to stop the run....like now. New England just scored another rushing TD on us. MAKE IT STOPPPPPPP

      Comment


      • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

        Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
        Is that a testament to Luck or Grigson though? I mean, did the Colts go to the AFC title game because of or in spite of Ryan? His major moves haven't worked out it seems.
        If you take Luck out and look at Grigson's first three drafts in the key rounds (1-3) I think he still shakes out ok. Vontae Davis (obviously not drafted but acquired with one of those picks), T.Y. Hilton, Dwayne Allen, Coby Fleener, and Jack Mewhort isn't such a terrible haul for three drafts. A couple of impact players and some solid role players behind. When you look at everybody it looks worse than it is because of the first round problems in 2013/2014, but overall it's still pretty solid.

        The issue that might get Grigson in trouble is can he build depth. The Colts already have the oldest starting defense in the NFL, and they don't exactly have a lot of young guys chomping at the bit waiting for playing time. Trading up often has been a big reason why, and while the Colts have been relatively successful at trading draft picks it's still something you can only go to so many times before getting into trouble. It's completely opposite of what the best organizations are doing, and that's a problem.

        Comment


        • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Those saying grigson is on thin ice are funny. Just went to AFC championship. He's not on thin ice.
          The trade for Richardson, like it or not, severely damaged Grigson's reputation around the league.
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

            Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
            I don't think either of us know how long Dorsett would have lasted in the draft.
            I get that but not really my point....

            Comment


            • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              The trade for Richardson, like it or not, severely damaged Grigson's reputation around the league.
              Difference between being on thin ice within your own organization and having a damaged reputation outside of your organization.

              Grigson has some head scratchers, be he's also had some very good selections (minus Luck). Picking another WR over defense or OL is a huge head scratcher though.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                During the season (football and basketball) I have limited time to catch the pro games let alone devote time to watching college. Having said that I can only go by the so called experts here and there if a player is any good. Seems when you look around the Colts are still in pretty good shape of getting someone pretty good for the front seven. Seems pretty certain household names Gregory and Goldman will be gone but apparently the fans should be looking for a second tier group that still pretty good. Anyway around the net the consensus is the following, Jordan Phillips, Grady Jarrett, and Preston Smith will be available. Don't know anything about them but folks seem to be pretty positive.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                  Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                  The trade for Richardson, like it or not, severely damaged Grigson's reputation around the league.
                  I think that last night's WR pick was even worse than the Richardson trade. At least with the Richardson trade, we were essentially using a late first rounder on something that needed improvement. WR did not need improvement.......certainly not at the cost of a first round selection. Last year's team made the AFCCG, and we've already upgraded the WR position since we are replacing Wayne with Johnson. No need to spend a first rounder there.

                  The Colts, regardless of who is running them, just cannot ever resist the temptation to pick up skill players. This pick might help us to some 45-10 drubbings of Jacksonville, but it won't do squat to win a game in Foxboro......or a game against the Pats at Indy for that matter.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-01-2015, 10:31 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I think that last night's WR pick was even worse than the Richardson trade. At least with the Richardson trade, we were essentially using a late first rounder on something that needed improvement. WR did not need improvement.......certainly not at the cost of a first round selection.

                    The Colts, regardless of who is running them, just cannot ever resist the temptation to pick up skill players. This pick might help us to some 45-10 drubbings of Jacksonville, but it won't do squat to win a game in Foxboro......or a game against the Pats at Indy for that matter.
                    We sure could've used some WR help last time we
                    Played New England...

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                      Originally posted by RWB View Post
                      During the season (football and basketball) I have limited time to catch the pro games let alone devote time to watching college. Having said that I can only go by the so called experts here and there if a player is any good. Seems when you look around the Colts are still in pretty good shape of getting someone pretty good for the front seven. Seems pretty certain household names Gregory and Goldman will be gone but apparently the fans should be looking for a second tier group that still pretty good. Anyway around the net the consensus is the following, Jordan Phillips, Grady Jarrett, and Preston Smith will be available. Don't know anything about them but folks seem to be pretty positive.
                      yeah, there's still a ton of defensive talent on the board. there's almost a full round to go until we pick again of course (for now anyway), I'm not calling the entire draft a disaster yet because of one pick I disagree with. plus Dorsett's good, even if he's not a real need at least he's probably not going to be a bust.

                      but if we do something like go RB in the 2nd today I'll probably join the masses.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                        Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                        Is that a testament to Luck or Grigson though? I mean, did the Colts go to the AFC title game because of or in spite of Ryan? His major moves haven't worked out it seems.
                        Throw in the fact that Pagano was not extended this spring and it no stretch to speculate that Irsay is taking a wait and see approach for this entire leadership group. This season will swing the pendulum one way or another for Pagano and how this draft class & free agent class produces may very well do the same for Grigson.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          We sure could've used some WR help last time we
                          Played New England...

                          You're not going to beat NE by loading up on receivers. Belichick is going to make the passing game hell if you cannot keep them honest in the other aspects of the game. Your WR's aren't going to do much good when the Pats are using bums off the street like Jonas Gray to light you up for four touchdowns and supreme clock killing. A rookie WR won't move that needle.

                          The Colts were only able to start beating the Pats in the mid 2000's when they had a complete team. We had one of the greatest overall offenses in NFL history in 04 and look at how miserably that turned out in the playoff game there.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                            Sports Illustrated gave us a B- on the pick for what that's worth....honestly I think that makes me feel worse that they like it.

                            and a player comparison of Ted Gin Jr.......I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                              I get Colts fans are pissed over this pick due to the needs elsewhere. But overall its not worth getting bent over and ripping Grigson (yet). For me the draft is all about BPA, and needs can be filled via FA. Teams will make additional cuts post draft and Grigson can find some cheap talent to fill the gap.

                              Im not gonna call for Grigson's head due to him drafting a position thats not of major need, but if this kid flops then prepare the pitchforks. Last I checked Andre Johnson, albeit a nice sign gets injured practically every season with a hamstring or other nicks and bruises - plus he is no spring chicken.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                                The cutting of Reggie makes this harder to accept. You cut a HOF that would have been a great stop gap if injuries occurred to the main receiving corps, not to mention invaluable to teaching the young guys how to practice and how to study, and then go out and draft a WR who won't see any field time.

                                At best, this is Hilton replacement if he leaves next year.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X