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

Cutler to the Bears

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

  • #16
    Re: Cutler to the Bears

    What do you think the Colts can get for Manning?

    2 First Rounders & A Defensive Stud.

    Cutler will be fine b/c he has Matt Forte running the ball. The Bears should look to sign Marvin or Holt maybe both. Pace is good but injury plagued.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Cutler to the Bears

      I wouldn't say Cutler will be fine. He needs to learn a new offense, get used to new players, their O-Line, even with the acquisition of Pace, is questionable, and has no weapons for receivers. He had Royal and Marshall in Denver, thats a nice duo right there. Plus Denver only gave up 11 sacks last year, thats not going to happen in Chicago. Matt Forte is good, but he is now discovered so teams will game plan accordingly to him where last year there was little known on him. Cutler has his work cut out ahead of him. The Bears probably will win the division, but they almost did last year as well. I think they gave up too much for Cutler. If Cutler lives up to the hype then i see it as a good trade for both teams.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Cutler to the Bears

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        This will be fun. The problem in Chicago has not been quality QBs. Its the utterly unreasonable expectations of Bears fans.

        Super Bowl?



        A couple of bad games and he'll be tossed into the same heap as Grossman, McNown, Stewart, etc. I think Cutler is a good QB but with what the Bears gave up (a pair of #1's and Orton), he can't live up to the expectations.

        As someone who dislikes the Bears more than any other sports franchise except the Celtics, I'm looking forward to watching this unfold from up close.
        Really so guys like Cade McNown, Kordell Stewart, Moses Moreno, Steve Stenstrom, Henry Burris etc, etc were not poor quality QB's but merely the victim of fan expectations? That is laughable.

        Jim Harbaugh did okay in Chicago. He got ran off by Dave Wannstedt, not the fans.

        Erik Kramer did okay for himself too. He got ran off by injuries, not the fans.

        Now Bears fans in the city of Chicago are mainly meatheads but to blame them for the ongoing QB failures is just letting your own hate of the Bears to cause you to say something patently ridiculous.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Cutler to the Bears

          As far as the Bears giving up a lot.......I don't see it. Especially considering the spotty history that Jerry Angelo has drafting players in the 1st round. He does his best work later in the draft. So they lose the #18 pick this year and a pick next season likely to be anywhere from the same spot or lower......maybe in the 20's. Is THAT really a lot to give up for a guy with the potential to be a franchise QB? Seems reasonable to me. Especially when the Bears still have EIGHT draft picks left to use in the 2009 draft alone.....yet the ESPN talking heads act like they just made a Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams trade. Okay. lol

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Cutler to the Bears

            Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
            As far as the Bears giving up a lot.......I don't see it. Especially considering the spotty history that Jerry Angelo has drafting players in the 1st round. He does his best work later in the draft. So they lose the #18 pick this year and a pick next season likely to be anywhere from the same spot or lower......maybe in the 20's. Is THAT really a lot to give up for a guy with the potential to be a franchise QB? Seems reasonable to me. Especially when the Bears still have EIGHT draft picks left to use in the 2009 draft alone.....yet the ESPN talking heads act like they just made a Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams trade. Okay. lol
            I agree, they gave up three high picks (not in the same draft) for a guy who already made the pro-bowl and is already a top-10, if not top-5, QB in the NFL.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Cutler to the Bears

              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
              I agree, they gave up three high picks (not in the same draft) for a guy who already made the pro-bowl and is already a top-10, if not top-5, QB in the NFL.
              Agreed. I feel like anyone whose hatred for the bears isn't like irrationally steamy can tell that this is a pretty solid move.... especially when you considered that they would've probably wasted the equivalent of those picks trying to find his equal. If he ends up being that franchise guy for them, then no way in hell do they regret this. And if he doesn't, then I don't think you can regret at least taking the risk. Cutler's as good as it gets, in terms of obtaining a franchise QB without actually trading for someone who is already at that level. (Which is probably impossible, anyway.) I look forward to watching him in Chicago... I love it when the teams I dislike are strong, anyway.

              (And sure, Denver has a ton of picks right now, but I bet they'd rather have their stud QB back in a second--McDaniels is going to look like an *** if he doesn't hit with those picks.)
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Cutler to the Bears

                Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                So they lose the #18 pick this year and a pick next season likely to be anywhere from the same spot or lower......maybe in the 20's. Is THAT really a lot to give up for a guy with the potential to be a franchise QB?
                When you consider how guys like Belichick are always looking to get rid of their first picks.... not at all.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Cutler to the Bears

                  The Bears didn't give up anything vital - and there's a good chance they got something vital. Cutler may crash and burn but based on last season I don't see why anyone would predict that. This is a good deal for Chicago IMO.

                  Too bad - I don't like the Bears. But it was a very good move.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Cutler to the Bears

                    Hmmm .... first round picks aren't vital?

                    Strange logic.

                    -- Steve --

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Cutler to the Bears

                      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                      The Bears didn't give up anything vital - and there's a good chance they got something vital. Cutler may crash and burn but based on last season I don't see why anyone would predict that. This is a good deal for Chicago IMO.

                      Too bad - I don't like the Bears. But it was a very good move.
                      Last season he had wide recievers but now he'll have a Devin Hester with bad hands and no one else. He will crash and burn only because he won't have good wr's.

                      Of course last season he didn't have a defense but its not like chicago's D has been living up to its past here lately.

                      Pacerfan,
                      1st round picks are vital but also costly if they don't work out. Check out Ryan Leaf and a number of others that cost alot and don't pan out.
                      I mean its not like chicago is known for its excellent drafting of offensive players.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Cutler to the Bears

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        Pacerfan,
                        1st round picks are vital but also costly if they don't work out. Check out Ryan Leaf and a number of others that cost alot and don't pan out.
                        I mean its not like chicago is known for its excellent drafting of offensive players.
                        Jeff George, Steve Entman, Sean Dawkins, Trev Alberts, Ellis Johnson .... all 1st round picks ..... then we picked #19 in 1996 ....

                        We had a bad history in 1st round picks. Guess we should have traded that pick according to this logic. Who needs Marvin Harrison anyway? Point is, you don't just trade them because of what happened in the past. It's still vital, and can be lightning in a bottle. Especially when your picks are in the 2nd half of the 1st round. Most picks between 15-20 get 14 million over 5 years. Chump change, and minimal risk.

                        -- Steve --
                        Last edited by Pacersfan46; 04-05-2009, 03:52 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Cutler to the Bears

                          Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                          Hmmm .... first round picks aren't vital?

                          Strange logic.

                          -- Steve --
                          In the NFL? They aren't vital at all. In fact unless I was giving up a top 3 or 5 pick (depending on the year) I'd readily swap a 1st rd pick for 2 seconds - every time.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Cutler to the Bears

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                            In the NFL? They aren't vital at all. In fact unless I was giving up a top 3 or 5 pick (depending on the year) I'd readily swap a 1st rd pick for 2 seconds - every time.
                            I think you're very much overstating how often players beyond the first round have an impact. You just hear about it much more because it's a shock when it happens. However it's far from the norm.

                            If I had the time I"d go through several teams depth charts and see what the ratio is for starters per round. I'm going to guess the 1st round would easily dominate that chart.

                            **Edit** I'll do this one later though, I'll check the Pro Bowl and see how many of those guys are 1st rounders as well. I'm going to guess that's exceedingly lopsided.

                            -- Steve --
                            Last edited by Pacersfan46; 04-05-2009, 04:10 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Cutler to the Bears

                              Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                              Hmmm .... first round picks aren't vital?

                              Strange logic.

                              -- Steve --
                              They are vital but when you look at it from the point that they'd have to burn at least one first rounder to get a "quality prospect". An extra one for a maturing young QB is pretty reasonable.
                              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Cutler to the Bears

                                Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                                Hmmm .... first round picks aren't vital?

                                Strange logic.

                                -- Steve --
                                Given the Bears current needs (defensive depth mainly) and Jerry Angelo's track record of being able to find nice defensive talent after the 1st round, no they really aren't all that vital to what the franchise is trying to accomplish right now. The Bears need a WR too but I believe that will be covered in FA rather than the draft....at least that is the current rumor making the rounds.

                                The opportunity to trade for a 25 year old QB coming off a Pro Bowl appearance in his 2nd full season as an NFL starter, how often does that kind of opportunity come along? Hardly ever happens, it is roughly equivalent to winning the lottery as far as I'm concerned. I think it is well worth trading two mid to low 1st round picks. These aren't top 10 picks the Bears dealt here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X