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

Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

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

  • #31
    Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

    Originally posted by Scot Pollard View Post
    If Ochocinco can stay with it, he and Brady will pair up well together.

    For Haynesworth, he just needed to get the hell away from Shannahan and Redskins. He's a good tackle and will do well for them.

    The Patriots will make these guys valuable which will make them a great team once again.
    I agree with this. I think Chad is in better shape than Moss was when he came over to the Pats and we all saw how dominant Moss became with Brady. Though Moss had the size advantage too. I think Haynesworth will really benefit from a change of scenery, the Pats will likely get his butt into gear, unfortunately. They appear to be using him as a DE in NE which will be interesting. Him and Wilfork put together..... We will have problems blocking that line. Peyton should pray before Pats games and throw the ball right after he hikes it..

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

      Originally posted by BPump33
      But he will play more End (which supposedly will make him happy) with New England. It's not like he's replaceing Wilfork at DT. Again, if he's unhappy, then he's cut. No big deal.
      plus NE plays multiple sets not just 3/4 (i think they play 40% 3/4) they will put him in packages for him to be successful. The reason he didn't like NT was because he was always getting double and triple teamed in Washington. Im sure they will put him in some packages what he was in Tennessee DT.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        In the past 5 years, there has been one team with two SB appearances. Guess who that is? The Colts.
        And the Steelers. This past Super Bowl and 2008 Super Bowl against the Cardinals.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

          Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
          Well i think or am hoping that this draft we finally got it right with the OL, thats why i left off some of the bigger OL names that are out there. And i agree that Cover 2 wouldn't utilize those Corners as much as they could, im just not happy with our CBs play and it would be a big upgrade to have a playmaker back there. I personally hate how we play the Cover 2.. If your gonna play it you should let your Corners play up tight and shadow the recievers as best as possible, unless its an extremely talented guy that you need to back off and then attack right when the ball is thrown towards him. But unfortunately a lot of the time thats how we play against all of the recievers and we just let them catch the ball without much contesting. That is my biggest complaint about our team. But also as i stated im worried because i don't feel we are improving like the other teams are and with peytons neck surgery it just makes me think we are going to start going downhill these next couple years.

          I also think we need bigger DT's and at least one big LB, speed is nice but when you get trucked its pointless.
          I agree on everything you state about the corners. Our corners are weak. Our LBs are weak. Our DTs are weak. We have some fairly one-dimensional DEs (albeit very good at that dimension) and one solid and one above average S.

          I don't care if it's cover 2. There's a reason we constantly line our corners up 10 yards off and just let people catch the ball in front of us. Our corners suck. They can't cover anybody. Add that to our swiss cheese run D and ouch.

          I do hope the run game improves with (hopefully) these O-line additions. At least maybe we can try to keep our D off the field more.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

            Originally posted by Really? View Post
            I just posted yesterday that the Colts could trade Anthony Gonzales and a 4th to Houston for Amobi Okoye their 24 yr old DT who is still young, very strong and prefers a 4-3 defense... Houston is switching its defense to a 3-4 and said they would take offers for him.

            They are always looking for wideout help so that definitely wouldn't hurt.... We have a lot of wideouts that have shown up in this previous year and could stand to let him go. Okoye would be an upgrade over the group we already have and he still has tons of room to grow...

            We could possibly do the deal for a 3rd and a 6th if we really wanted to. Plus I will say that his contract is pretty inexpensive so it wouldn't hurt us if we did it for picks... if we traded Gonzo it might actually give us even more cap space... I am sure I could think of other trades but this is one that came to mind...
            Love the sentiment. If Houston would deal, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but there's the whole trading to a division rival thing too.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              plus NE plays multiple sets not just 3/4 (i think they play 40% 3/4) they will put him in packages for him to be successful. The reason he didn't like NT was because he was always getting double and triple teamed in Washington. Im sure they will put him in some packages what he was in Tennessee DT.
              They play a 3-4 a lot more than 40% of the time. Yes it's a modified 3-4, but when they modify it, they usually drop their DE's into coverage and then blitz linebackers.

              Or they stand around before the snap, and then go into their rush/coverage once the ball is snapped.

              But they are a 3-4 team, that occasionally uses a 4-3. Either way, Haynesworth is going to be lined up in the exact same position as he was in Washington. He'll have limited reps, because him and Wilfork will need to share the role.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                Love the sentiment. If Houston would deal, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but there's the whole trading to a division rival thing too.
                Yeah that is the only sucky part... but hey I would give it a go... it is a deal that could help out both teams, if it was lopsided to one team or another then I could see a problem...
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  They play a 3-4 a lot more than 40% of the time. Yes it's a modified 3-4, but when they modify it, they usually drop their DE's into coverage and then blitz linebackers.

                  Or they stand around before the snap, and then go into their rush/coverage once the ball is snapped.

                  But they are a 3-4 team, that occasionally uses a 4-3. Either way, Haynesworth is going to be lined up in the exact same position as he was in Washington. He'll have limited reps, because him and Wilfork will need to share the role.
                  it is 40% nfl network showed it yesterday

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                    I find that extremely low. I can't fathom calling your basic philosophy a 3-4, when you don't even execute it half of the time.

                    Do you remember the other major formations and their percentages?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I find that extremely low. I can't fathom calling your basic philosophy a 3-4, when you don't even execute it half of the time.

                      Do you remember the other major formations and their percentages?
                      no but here is a video on how the Pats plan to use him. They arent playing him at NT.
                      http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-free-a...th-to-Patriots


                      http://www.zimbio.com/NFL/articles/R...iots+ESPN+blog
                      found the percentage

                      Last season, Haynesworth made it known that he did not like the way he was used in the Redskins’ 3-4 scheme. Like the Redskins, the Patriots also run a 3-4 defense although they lined up in that front less frequently. The Patriots used a 3-4 defense on 40.1 percent of their snaps last season, 11th-most among 15 teams that lined up in a 3-4 defense on at least 200 snaps. Washington lined up 50.6 percent of the time in a 3-4.
                      Last edited by pacer4ever; 07-29-2011, 04:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                        Mike Reiss of ESPN Boston every year breaks down every snap by formation and by personnel, and that analysis above is roughly accurate.

                        They routinely use 4 man fronts on passing downs and they even almost exclusively use 4 man fronts and 5 or more DBs against pass-heavy teams like the Colts, with a 4-2-5 or even 4-1-6 alignment. Typically a safety also lines up as the a LB in those two formations. used to be Rodney Harrison, now it's Patrick Chung and/or Meriweather.

                        They always use game-plan personnel, so it's not like they always line up the same way and say "here we are, deal with it".




                        Haynesworth is a turd. His contract is not guaranteed at all, so he's got about 4 weeks to show he cares and if not, bye-- and the cost is a 5th round pick in two years.

                        Chad Jackson is a self-promoter but not an on-and-off-the-field lousy person and teammate like Haynesworth. The reported cost? 5th rounder next year, 6th rounder in twom years. Sure he has lost a little. How does he compare to Deon Branch, who was reborn after coming to NE last year?

                        I'll be stunned if Chad doesn't work out and surprised if Haynesworth does work out. When the cost is three picks you would normally use to practice squad-type talent, I can't argue with the overall risk-reward ratio for either move, though.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 07-30-2011, 12:19 AM.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                          Haynesworth failed his conditioning test. Shocking.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                            So happy I can read stories about Fat Albert and not see "Redskins" attached to his name

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                              Tick...Tick...Tick... One of these bombs are gonna explode in their face. I know they gave little for them but Chad is getting really long in the tooth and Albert just doesn't seem to love the game or have a work ethic.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth are Patriots ....

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                Haynesworth failed his conditioning test. Shocking.
                                link?

                                It would not surprise we, but this was not confirmed anywhere. He passed his physical on Friday, worked out on Saturday but didn't practice with the team, a full-pads practice. Perhaps he disn't yet know the system well enough for a full contact practice.

                                Today he passed the conditioning test and practiced, a light walk-through.

                                http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...ditioning-test
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X