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

Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

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

  • #76
    Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    What does teams being interested in trading for RGIII have to do with Luck? Everyone knows that the Rams are trading that pick which is why teams are going to be offering some ridiculous packages for him.

    OTOH, everyone knows that the Colts are drafting Luck and that's that. No one is going to waste their time trying to pry something away that's not available in the first place. If Luck were in fact available, then the packages teams would throw at us would be even better than the ones the Rams will get for RGIII.
    That is true and watch the Rams prosper and built a good team with those packages while the Colts suffer in the cellar rebuilding for years with Luck.....

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

      Can't wait for Luck to be selected. Colts record will be mediocre first two years and then mutiple Super Bowls for the horse shoes later. This opinion based prediction stuff is a lot of fun.
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

        I think the Colts should hire OlBlu as the GM and trade the Redskins Luck for a 7th round pick.

        Hell, Id even throw in a free dinner to any steakhouse of your choice in Indiana.

        Seriously, go apply for the job. The kid has no talent and no value, and should be traded ASAP!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
          That is true and watch the Rams prosper and built a good team with those packages while the Colts suffer in the cellar rebuilding for years with Luck.....

          Were you saying this sort of stuff when the Colts went 3-13 in Manning's rookie year? Were you ready to give up on him when he had a bad 4th season in 2001 with the Cotls going 6-10?

          2 of Manning's first 4 years were "rough" by any objective measure. The 5th year (Dungy's first) was solid at 10-6, but the 41-0 thrashing by the Jets is the first thing one remembers when they think of that season (aside from Harrison's receptions record). The truth is, Manning didn't get consistently great until 2003, his 6th season in the league. He showed a lot of brilliance in the early years of his career, but he also had some rough patches.

          It takes time. When you're calling Luck a bust in his second year just because we aren't 12-4, don't forget that it took Peyton time too. Hypothetically speaking, if Luck is the starter next year then yes, things will be a bit rough in 2012. But we will get some good draft picks at least and if our front office is good then those could pan out well. Plus, won't we eventually have some cap room if we don't keep all of these older players? Maybe we could be a FA player for once.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

            Originally posted by RWB View Post
            Can't wait for Luck to be selected. Colts record will be mediocre first two years and then mutiple Super Bowls for the horse shoes later. This opinion based prediction stuff is a lot of fun.
            Colts will win right away with Luck. Should be 3 SB's in a row. After that other teams will catch up and it will be tougher winning our next 3. It might take 4-5 more years to win those next 3 after winning the first 3 in a row.

            You are right... Opinion based predictions are fun!
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

              From Peter King lest we forget.....

              There hasn't been a second pick in the draft this compelling since 1998. Throw away the draft trade value chart. It's meaningless when there's a player creating the buzz of Griffin. Same thing with Ryan Leaf 14 years ago. Forget what Leaf became; he and Peyton Manning, at one point after the college football season, were 1 and 1a on draft boards for any quarterback-needy teams. San Diego was picking third that year and Arizona second. The Cards put the pick up for auction. To move one spot, San Diego sent two first-round picks, a second- and three-time Pro Bowl running back/returner Eric Metcalf.

              The Rams will drive a hard bargain. Cleveland (fourth overall pick), Washington (sixth) and Miami (eighth) will be in the derby to move up; Seattle (12) and a couple of mystery teams could be too. Add the fact that the money involved (four years, about $22 million) is likely to be less than the money paid to the top (current) free agent Matt Flynn, and the market for Griffin will be hopping.

              "The whole paradigm has changed in several ways,'' said Rams COO Kevin Demoff Saturday night. "Griffin could be cheaper than Flynn. The fact that you can get a potential franchise quarterback for what the top picks are paid now makes it easier to justify trading a lot for it.''

              So the Rams hope.

              Demoff thinks there will be three distinct windows to get a deal done. The first, and I think most unlikely, is before the free agency period opens March 13; before Griffin gets hotter at his March 21 Pro Day, a team may choose to try to blow the Rams out of the water with an offer. The second would be after the Pro Day, when all the teams' decision-makers are in one spot, Palm Beach, Fla., at the March 24-28 league meetings. The third: in the days or hours before the April 26 first round.

              "You can't tell what the musical chairs will do,'' said Demoff. "Maybe someone will get left out and need Griffin. You don't know.''

              The Rams have to hope that two top-10 teams in the first round want to compete for the pick. Without that, they won't be able to maximize value. The Rams will trade the pick, for sure. But the size of the ransom will depend on the seriousness of the competition.


              Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1nh6ulbkB

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                What do you mean?
                I mean that teams are trying to line themselves up to get a QB not named Andrew Luck in a draft that supposedly only has one "decade" caliber QB.

                My position has always been constant. RGIII plus multiple first round picks (4-5 picks) is better than Andrew Luck by himself. It's not even close.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I mean that teams are trying to line themselves up to get a QB not named Andrew Luck in a draft that supposedly only has one "decade" caliber QB.

                  My position has always been constant. RGIII plus multiple first round picks (4-5 picks) is better than Andrew Luck by himself. It's not even close.
                  I agree with you. Look at this way.... Apparently the Rams would not trade Sam Bradford for RGIII. Do you think anyone would consider trading Cam Newton for the rights to Luck? Would Detroit consider trading Stafford for Luck? Would San Diego consider trading Phillip Rivers for Luck? This list can go on for a while. Would Atlanta trade Ryan for Luck? Luck has Ryan Leaf written all over him......

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I mean that teams are trying to line themselves up to get a QB not named Andrew Luck in a draft that supposedly only has one "decade" caliber QB.

                    My position has always been constant. RGIII plus multiple first round picks (4-5 picks) is better than Andrew Luck by himself. It's not even close.
                    problem with this logic you cant have both. You cant trade Luck then end up with RG3 without giving up nearly as much because the Rams at #2 have so many partners.

                    IMO the only way to make sure you get the guy you want is draft them with the #1. You could easily trade #1 and the Rams choose to trade RG3 to the Redskins because the owner really overpays I don't think your logic is realistic. But I am on record I would draft RG3 #1.
                    Last edited by pacer4ever; 02-28-2012, 12:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I mean that teams are trying to line themselves up to get a QB not named Andrew Luck in a draft that supposedly only has one "decade" caliber QB.

                      My position has always been constant. RGIII plus multiple first round picks (4-5 picks) is better than Andrew Luck by himself. It's not even close.


                      Luck is irrelevant. Luck is being picked by the Colts and everyone around the NFL knows this. No one is going to waste their time worrying about something that is off the table.

                      RGIII has gotten plenty of hype, BTW. There is Luck, RGIII, and then everyone else. They are the only two guys who could command a large trade package.

                      You advocating us getting RGIII plus multiple first round picks isn't a feasible scenario unless you believe that St. Louis would kick Bradford to the curb for Luck even though they wouldn't for RGIII. Plus, instead of getting a bunch of picks (like they will for RGIII), they would have to give up a ton in order to get Luck.

                      How exactly could we pull off getting RGIII AND the draft picks? St. Louis controls his destiny and they are the ones who are going to be trading him for picks. I think they would rather have Bradford + a bunch of picks as opposed to having Luck while giving up a ton of their picks to us (which is what would be required in your scenario). That's a difference of like 7 or 8 picks.

                      Your scenario just doesn't work.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-28-2012, 12:54 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                        There are always options to get what you want.

                        Not to mention the fact that StL might not trade the pick. They very well could have a player, say Justin Blackmon, as their target. If the only trade partners are coming from the Redskins (6th pick) or the Dolphins (8th pick) they couldn't be guaranteed that the player they want would be available. Then what do they do?
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          problem with this logic you cant have both. You cant trade Luck then end up with RG3 without giving up nearly as much because the Rams at #2 have so many partners.

                          IMO the only way to make sure you get the guy you want is draft them with the #1. You could easily trade #1 and the Rams choose to trade RG3 to the Redskins because the owner really overpays I don't think your logic is realistic. But I am on record I would draft RG3 #1.
                          Dan Snyder has not overpaid for players in a while, really a couple of years.

                          Yes, I could see RGIII being a Redskins. And yes, that excites me. Then again, it doesnt take a lot to excite me any more when it comes to the Redskins

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                            As far as the Colts missing on Luck and the #1 pick, look no further to when they drafted Manning. They got that QB decision right. And like I said, look no further because then you'll see Jeff George....
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                              I really hope you're joking with that.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I really hope you're joking with that.
                                When you have to explain the jokes it really calls the joke into question...

                                I used the old expression "look no further" and tied it to the Colts picking Manning over Leaf and how they used that pick perfectly to get a franchise QB (implying they'd not miss this one either). Then, still with the phrase "look no further" in mind, I pointed out I really meant "look no further". If you did look further at the Colts' history you'd see the Colts totally whiffing when they thought Jeff George was the next big franchise NFL QB and picking him. Then I added the 'eek' smiley to emphasize they certainly could be wrong about Luck just as they were wrong about Jeff George.

                                There... I explained it...
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X