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

ESPN Insider request

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

  • ESPN Insider request

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/colum...26id%3d2162346

    can somebody please post that? i want to see what they have to say about rothliseburger and manning...holla.
    Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

  • #2
    Re: ESPN Insider request

    Brady, Manning among the six in elite grouping





    One thing is never going to change about the NFL. The quarterback is usually going to be the hero or the goat. Forget that it's a team game. Forget that playing quarterback in this league is more physically, mentally and emotionally demanding than ever before. Nobody wants to use rationale in defining most of these guys.

    In fact, I am always amazed by how many fans and media members want to denigrate a quarterback such as Peyton Manning, Brett Favre or Michael Vick, all in the name of Tom Brady. When you have so few elite quarterbacks, can't we just enjoy all of them?

    So, as usual, I have kept a file of notes from conversations with general managers, scouts, coaches, players and former quarterbacks who have their own views of the guys under center in today's NFL.

    It's all subjective and we're not going to rate them Nos. 1 through 32, but we will break them down into four medal levels -- platinum, gold, silver and bronze along with a special category -- with names listed in alphabetical order in each grouping. You might be surprised.

    Platinum

    Tom Brady
    Quarterback
    New England Patriots
    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    AttCompPaTDRuTDIntRat
    3824200105.8
    Tom Brady, Patriots: What impresses most about Brady, aside from the obvious, is that he gets better physically every year. Not by mistake. The guy works at it. His legs are stronger; his arm shows it. He has tremendous moxie. And there's no question that he is driven by his doubters -- more past than present, but nevertheless they seem to haunt him as he proves them all wrong.

    Daunte Culpepper, Vikings: Don't overreact to his struggles in the opener. Physically, he has no peer and he is the undisputed leader of the Vikings. The biggest question I have about Culpepper is who will he miss most in '05: Randy Moss, center Matt Birk or offensive coordinator Scott Linehan?

    Brett Favre, Packers: A shadow of his former self? Give me a break. Favre threw for 4,088 yards and 30 TDs last year. He's thrown for 62 TDs the past two seasons. Even in defeat to the Lions, he made throws that most NFL quarterbacks can't make.

    Peyton Manning, Colts: What were the Colts before Manning? What are they now? His opener against the Ravens was a valuable look at what he's about as a quarterback. He was missing a key weapon in TE Dallas Clark (concussion) and the matchups arguably favored the Ravens, who thought they could eventually break Manning. Instead, he broke them in the second half.

    Donovan McNabb, Eagles: He didn't show it Monday night because of the early chest injury, but he's evolved into a fundamentally sound passer who can make all the throws. Very strong. All of these elite QBs are tremendous leaders; none leads better than McNabb.

    Michael Vick, Falcons: He's just a totally different guy, and Monday night's win over the Eagles was a good snapshot. Did Vick play well as a passer? Absolutely not. Could the Falcons have won the game without Vick? Absolutely not. The Falcons' running game may be the best in football and much of that credit goes to Vick, who freezes the back side of a defense, paralyzed by the thought that Vick could emerge from the backfield with the ball in his hand.

    Gold

    Drew Brees, Chargers: One-year wonder? Don't think so. He's arrived as a quarterback and now that TE Antonio Gates is available, this offense will make a lot of opposing defenses uncomfortable with Brees pulling the trigger.

    Aaron Brooks, Saints: True, there's always been something about his leadership that has bothered people. And he's capable of doing some boneheaded things, but generally he takes care of the ball better than the perception. He has a whip for an arm and he is using his legs more to make plays.

    Marc Bulger, Rams: It's time to give him his due. He has plenty of tools around him but the offensive line is shaky and he'll stand in there, take the shots, and deliver the ball on time and usually on the mark. You just have to wonder whether he will last if he takes too many shots.

    Jake Delhomme, Panthers: Physically, he throws better than most people realize. He still has some athleticism. He has moxie, he's usually strong in the clutch, and his guys believe in him. Now, how much will he miss Muhsin Muhammad?

    Trent Green
    Quarterback
    Kansas City Chiefs
    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    AttCompPaTDRuTDIntRat
    261500166.2
    Trent Green, Chiefs: Yes, he has the game's best tight end in Tony Gonzalez, a terrific offensive line and a dynamic running duo in Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson, but when was the last time the Chiefs had a true Pro Bowl receiver? Yet Green finds a way every year to be among the league leaders.

    Matt Hasselbeck, Seahawks: If this guy was surrounded by a better cast of receivers, he could challenge for that platinum status. He's a vastly underrated thrower who understands his offense and what defenses are trying to do to him.

    Byron Leftwich, Jaguars: I'll get some raised eyebrows for this one, I guess. True, Leftwich is slow and he winds up to let it rip (John Elway and Favre were/are classic wind-up throwers), but he's got a plus arm, he's accurate, he's big, he's a worker and he's a dynamic leader.

    Steve McNair, Titans: It was very difficult not to include McNair in the platinum status. But we just need a little more evidence that the injuries and personnel losses have not taken their physical and mental toll on this warrior.

    Carson Palmer, Bengals: He has all the physical tools and he has weapons. Now we'll find out if he can handle the heat of high expectations.

    Silver

    Drew Bledsoe, Cowboys: I'm going to be a little kinder to Bledsoe than most cynics. He's grown into a big-time leader. There's never been any secret about the key to his success -- protect him and he can be lethal. Nobody understands this better than Cowboys coach Bill Parcells. That combination makes Bledsoe a threat.

    David Carr, Texans: Without question, this guy is toughest to figure. He has physical skills to be a gold/platinum quarterback. He was the first pick of the draft three years ago. He should be ready to shine, but the decline we saw at the end of last season has manifested itself early this season. True, the Bills' defense that beat him Sunday can make anyone look weak, but it still leaves some questions about Carr: Is it the offense? Did he get hit too much early in his career? Is it too early to panic?

    Kerry Collins, Raiders: Does he have a great arm? Yes. Will his stats look good at the end of the year? Most likely. It's just the way he plays the game (still too many careless turnovers for a vet) and his body language hardly breeds confidence.

    Brian Griese
    Quarterback
    Tampa Bay Buccaneers
    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    AttCompPaTDRuTDIntRat
    291820278.7
    Brian Griese, Bucs: He throws a nice ball and physically he looks a little better, but I'm a little tired of hearing that he was a "70-percent passer" in '04, especially in an offense that almost makes you an automatic 65 percenter. For a guy with as much time in the NFL as he now has, Griese still is prone to bonehead plays. He has a chance to move up the list, but we'll wait first.

    J.P. Losman, Bills: He hasn't done a whole lot to even generate a silver rating, but it's hard to deny his physical tools (arm and legs). He's a workaholic, too. If he can make it through the next five games as well as he did in Week 1, then he's a potential ace. Biggest worry, for a guy who isn't afraid to run around, may be health.

    Eli Manning, Giants: He looked rusty in the team's opener, which is why the elbow injury in preseason was noteworthy. He's still young, he still needs the reps, but there's no reason to believe he won't get better as time rolls on. What we saw in last year's Week 15 performance against the Steelers in a near upset is what we ultimately expect.

    Chad Pennington, Jets: It's really difficult to evaluate Pennington, especially coming off major shoulder surgery and a dreadful opener in Kansas City. You wonder about his arm and his confidence. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt based on prior history. He is savvy, he can lead and something good is bound to happen soon.

    Jake Plummer, Broncos: This may or may not be the most misleading ranking of all. The opening loss to the Dolphins was a setback. Plummer should be a gold quarterback with his physical skills and the benefit of running an offense cleverly designed and called by Mike Shanahan. Like Griese, an ex-Bronco, it just seems something is missing.

    Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers: Big Ben, Losman and Eli Manning probably belong in a separate category -- young quarterbacks with a world of potential. And when you consider that Roethlisberger has suffered just one loss in the regular season as a starter, he certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt. I just want to see what happens if the Steelers' running game ever stalls.

    Kurt Warner, Cardinals:If Arizona ever settles its offensive line, we may be able to see if Warner has a couple of big years left. There is more than ample receiving talent to measure Warner if he is protected.

    Bronze

    Mark Brunell, Redskins: Really, it's just the quarterback situation in Washington that drops Brunell so low. He looked pretty sharp in preseason, like a younger Brunell who was a Pro Bowl QB in Jacksonville. He just has to prove Joe Gibbs is right after the sudden demotion of Patrick Ramsey.

    Trent Dilfer, Browns: He still has a strong arm and he knows the game. He also knows the Browns are simply looking for his leadership in a time of transition before the torch is passed to rookie Charlie Frye.

    Gus Frerotte, Dolphins: He looked shaky in the preseason and even after a nice opening win over the Broncos, chances are he'll have his shaky moments the rest of the season. But he's a solid veteran, he knows the system and he's capable of throwing some good balls.

    Joey Harrington, Lions: He's definitely making progress and he has good, young skill players around him, but the offensive line could be exposed -- this week's game against the Bears should give us a real picture. Harrington will catch heat if it's not pretty and he may not be the guy to blame.

    Tim Rattay, 49ers: Many of you will laugh at the fact that Rattay is given the same status as others in this category. I just wonder how many of the quarterbacks on this entire list would have fared in San Francisco the past two years. He's not bad. Honest.



    Blue (as in singing the blues)

    Kyle Boller
    Quarterback
    Baltimore Ravens
    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    AttCompPaTDRuTDIntRat
    231500163.9
    Kyle Boller, Ravens: It was difficult to evaluate Boller last season when so many of his weapons were out of order. He's just never looked comfortable. Then again, has a Ravens QB ever looked comfortable? Now Boller has a turf toe injury and coach Brian Billick has sent a pretty clear signal that Anthony Wright has a chance to win the job with this new opportunity.

    Kyle Orton, Bears: No rookie is going to look overly impressive in his first game against the Redskins' defense. Orton has shown some promising traits -- he's got good size, a plus arm, he seems to grasp the NFL game … but, he's still a fourth-round rookie until he proves otherwise. ESPN's Chris Mortensen is a regular contributor to Insider. He chats every Wednesday in The Show.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN Insider request

      • Kyle Orton, Bears: No rookie is going to look overly impressive in his first game against the Redskins' defense. Orton has shown some promising traits -- he's got good size, a plus arm, he seems to grasp the NFL game … but, he's still a fourth-round rookie until he proves otherwise.
      I watched much of this game, and to tell you the truth, Orton looked good. A rookie, against the 'Skins, in his first NFL game, he looked good. Big Ben kind of rookie success? No. But something to work with in the future.
      It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ESPN Insider request

        thx Floflyer and welcome

        Why Not Us ?

        Comment

        Working...
        X