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

Rex Grossman

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

  • #31
    Re: Rex Grossman

    If Grossman were on any other team, he'd of been benched at least a month ago.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Rex Grossman

      http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....ears-headlines

      S(t)inking teams stay alive in soft NFC
      Subpar conference will have at least one 8-8 team in playoffs
      Don Pierson
      On Pro Football

      December 25, 2006

      With the New York Giants and Atlanta Falcons continuing the NFC's full-speed retreat to the playoffs Sunday, the Packers will be looking forward to next Sunday's game at Soldier Field against the Bears—at least until Saturday.

      As badly as the Giants have played, they remain among five 7-8 teams still in the NFC hunt. And they finish their regular season Saturday night at Washington.

      Since no 7-8 team plays another in the regular-season finale, it is still possible, though unlikely, that the NFL will see its first playoff team with a losing record since realigning to eight divisions.

      At 7-8, NFC teams like the Packers are beginning to feel very good about themselves. And AFC teams like the hot 8-7 Tennessee Titans with remarkable rookie quarterback Vince Young are beginning to wish they were in the NFC.

      Brett Favre likely won't be able to say whether the Bears game will be his last. At least one NFC team with no better than an 8-8 record will make the playoffs whether it wants to or not. If tiebreakers get to strength of schedule, the Giants edge the Packers.

      If Favre knows he plans to retire, he isn't saying. Now it's not going to be the only story all week out of Green Bay.

      The Packers can thank the New Orleans Saints for beating the Giants and the Carolina Panthers for beating the Falcons to aid their cause.

      Those losses for the Giants and Falcons, both at home, put more than their playoff hopes in jeopardy. They also put the futures of coaches Tom Coughlin and Jim Mora in serious doubt. The Giants have lost six of their last seven games, the Falcons six of their last eight.

      The Saints' dominating 30-7 win in East Rutherford, N.J., put them one win from clinching an NFC bye. If they beat the Panthers next weekend in New Orleans or if the Dallas Cowboys lose to Philadelphia on Monday or the Lions next Sunday, the Saints will be the No. 2 seed to the Bears.

      That means they couldn't meet in the playoffs until the conference championship game, which would be Jan. 21 at Soldier Field.

      The Bears will open the playoffs Jan. 13 or 14 against the lowest surviving seed after the wild-card playoffs Jan. 6-7.

      The Panthers, losers of four in a row, got off the mat to beat the Falcons 10-3. Michael Vick became the first quarterback to rush for more than 1,000 yards in a season, but so far his career has been distinguished primarily by individual accomplishment.

      Although the Eagles still can win the NFC East by beating the Cowboys on Monday and Atlanta next week, they are now the No. 5 seed and can clinch a playoff spot in Dallas.

      At 8-7, Seattle clinched the NFC West and is currently the No. 4 seed. If the Seahawks stay that way and prevail over the No. 5 seed on wild-card week, Seattle likely would be the Bears' first playoff opponent.

      By beating the Bills 30-29 in Buffalo for their sixth straight victory, the Titans remained the most compelling story in the league and still hoping to become the first team ever to overcome a start of 0-5 and make the playoffs.

      Young directed a 10-point rally in the fourth quarter to beat the Bills as coach Dick Jauron passed up a 45-yard field-goal attempt against the wind and J.P. Losman's final pass was intercepted.

      Not all was well with the AFC, as the Indianapolis Colts, once the last undefeated team in the league, lost to the lowly Houston Texans for the first time in the Texans' five-year history.

      The Colts have lost four of their last six and remain unable to stop the run, a key to championship defense. Journeyman running back Ron Dayne rushed for a career-high 153 yards and two TDs against the Colts' porous defense.

      The San Diego Chargers needed to rally to beat Seattle and remain the top seed in the AFC. The New England Patriots clinched the AFC East by beating Jacksonville. The Baltimore Ravens clinched the AFC North by beating the defending Super Bowl champion Steelers.

      Based on current conditions in the NFC, the Bears will be favored in every game until the Super Bowl, when they still look like they would be an underdog to most of the AFC contenders.

      dpierson@tribune.com
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Rex Grossman

        We are 13-2 with Rex as our quarterback. Enough said...hate all you want, until we hold the Lombardi trophy.
        |Bears 3-5 - Bulls 0-4|Aren't we just on a roll?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Rex Grossman

          Originally posted by tdubb03 View Post
          If Grossman were on any other team, he'd of been benched at least a month ago.
          He played very well today and helped the Bears win a playoff game despite the defense not playing all that well. Not bad for a guy "any other team would bench a month ago".

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Rex Grossman

            Interesting that when he had time he was able to throw against Seattle. Why Dallas didn't do this last week is beyond me. Romo is about equal to Grossman but has a better group of recievers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Rex Grossman

              Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
              He played very well today and helped the Bears win a playoff game despite the defense not playing all that well. Not bad for a guy "any other team would bench a month ago".
              I love to listen to the Chicago AM stations on the weekend.

              There all worried now about the D. Saying Rex played fine today it's the D that we need to worry about, we are not going to win against NO or heaven forbid one of the AFC teams , if our D plays like this ..

              The tables have turned , reminds me of another team

              Why Not Us ?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Rex Grossman

                Rex threw some real strikes on his downfield passes yesterday in icky weather.

                He might have played some bad games this season, but he's not the Bears' weak link.

                Against better competition, their defense has been exposed as "average" and has lost its swagger. With the swagger, they were probably "above average."

                Still, I really take exception with this group of Bears' claiming they are being called "the worst 13-3 team in the history of football" as motivation.

                That title cearly belongs to the 2001 Bears, who went a whopping 1-2 against teams with winning records during the regular season and then got crushed in the playoffs.

                This team has at least faced, and occasionally beaten, opponents with winning records, and might just be the best team in the NFC. However, beating Seattle without Alexander in the regular season never qualified as "beating a quality opponent" that it was hyped to be, as reflected in the fact that, with Alexander, the game went overtime and Alexander played very effectively.

                And as Ohio State showed last week, there is a reason they play the championship games before annointing a champion. Its still too bad the AFC can't play a "loser's bracket", have that team play the NFC champion, and then the winner of that game gets to play the AFC champion. But I digress. After all those years of NFC dominance, I know this AFC dominance thing will come to an end some day, but I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Rex Grossman

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                  However, beating Seattle without Alexander in the regular season never qualified as "beating a quality opponent" that it was hyped to be, as reflected in the fact that, with Alexander, the game went overtime and Alexander played very effectively.
                  The reason the 2nd game was so much closer is not nearly so simple as saying it was because of the return of Alexander. That definitely helped, but also the Bears defense had both Mike Brown and Tommie Harris healthy for that first game. Once Mike Brown got injured, that is when the Bears defense started to lose the swagger. He was an integral part of the run defense as he supported the run very well from his safety position. And Tommie Harris was a one man nightmare against the Seahawks in that Sunday night game.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Rex Grossman

                    I'm sure those things you noted are true and made a difference as well. But for about two months this fall, I had to listen to "we blew out Seattle, and they played in the SB last year" as justification of a win "against a quality opponent."

                    Of course, a couple of these guys spent most of the fall (prior to the Bears' four-game road trip) trying to convince me that the Vikings were "really a great team."
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Rex Grossman

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                      I'm sure those things you noted are true and made a difference as well. But for about two months this fall, I had to listen to "we blew out Seattle, and they played in the SB last year" as justification of a win "against a quality opponent."

                      Of course, a couple of these guys spent most of the fall (prior to the Bears' four-game road trip) trying to convince me that the Vikings were "really a great team."
                      Oh okay. Well, I didn't see the win against Seattle as THAT big of a deal but at the time, it seemed like a quality win. The Seahawks entered that game 3-0 and playing pretty well. It didn't take long after that win to see that Seattle wasn't the same team as last year.

                      Both the wins against Seattle and the NY Giants looked like quality wins immediately after those games but quickly lost their luster in subsequent weeks.

                      The New England game was the one I wanted the most. Maybe the Bears will get a rematch.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Rex Grossman

                        Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                        Oh okay. Well, I didn't see the win against Seattle as THAT big of a deal but at the time, it seemed like a quality win. The Seahawks entered that game 3-0 and playing pretty well. It didn't take long after that win to see that Seattle wasn't the same team as last year.

                        Both the wins against Seattle and the NY Giants looked like quality wins immediately after those games but quickly lost their luster in subsequent weeks.

                        The New England game was the one I wanted the most. Maybe the Bears will get a rematch.
                        You would not believe the number of people that have said that to me already...

                        Of course, they're not referring to it as a rematch of the regular season game. They're referring to it as a rematch of Super Bowl XX.

                        This would be a fun week to be a Bears fan. But I'm not...
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Rex Grossman

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                          You would not believe the number of people that have said that to me already...

                          Of course, they're not referring to it as a rematch of the regular season game. They're referring to it as a rematch of Super Bowl XX.

                          This would be a fun week to be a Bears fan. But I'm not...
                          To be honest, I'd rather see a Bears vs Colts Super Bowl.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Rex Grossman

                            Rex played well enough to help his team to a Super Bowl.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Rex Grossman

                              Originally posted by tdubb03 View Post
                              If Grossman were on any other team, he'd of been benched at least a month ago.
                              Good call.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Rex Grossman

                                I heard on ESPN that Grossman actually has the same number of over 100.0 QB rating games as Peyton does this season. And he's actually had better numbers in the playoffs too.

                                Now, there's no way I'm insinuating Grossman is as good as Peyton (that's ridiculous). But Grossman, when he's on, is an above average to good QB in the NFL, which is why Lovie has stuck with him.

                                But if the bad Grossman shows up, the Bears have no chance, NONE, to win the Super Bowl. He has to keep the turnovers to 0 or 1, and let the Bears defense and running game win it for them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X