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

Reach in 2012 or wait until 2013

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

  • Reach in 2012 or wait until 2013

    This is a pretty interesting article to think about when assessing what the Colts should do in the draft and where a reach might not be the best idea, I know early predictions do not always turn out to be what people think at the end of the year, but typically the top-top guys don't fall too much if at all.

    http://draftbreakdown.com/big-pictur...2013-nfl-draft

    Big Picture: 2012 and 2013 Draft

    By Mike Daneshgar
    March 8th, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    When looking at any draft, it is important to grasp the big picture. Not only should the positional depth of the current draft be looked at, but that of the next year’s draft as well. If there are 5 players of equal talent available at a position, why choose one when you can trade down, pick up additional draft choices, and end up with a player whom you would have taken at the earlier draft slot? Or, worst case scenario – pull a Minnesota and don’t turn in your card.

    Every fan wants to fix their team in one offseason. As nice as that would be, it’s just not realistic. Two teams that have consistently won over the past decade are the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles – and it’s no coincidence that they both are known to maneuver quite a bit on draft day to acquire future picks. That long term approach increases the odds that they win the crapshoot that is the NFL Draft. Most importantly, it takes into account positional strengths of current drafts and compares them to that of the following draft. Big picture, folks!

    Which leads me to the point of this article – how does the talent of the 2012 NFL Draft line up to that of which we COULD see in 2013? I’m glad you asked.

    Here are the combined top prospects at each position. I’m not a big fan of numerically ranking players because so much depends on team scheme and whether you prefer taking a chance at upside or going with a safe choice. As a result, I’ve broken it up into tiers. Tiers of joy.


    (2012 NFL Draft prospects are identified with an asterisk)


    Quarterback

    Tier 1

    *Andrew Luck, Stanford

    Tier 2
    *Robert Griffin III, Baylor
    Matt Barkley, USC

    Tier 3
    Tyler Bray, Tennessee
    *Ryan Tannehill, Texas A&M
    Tyler Wilson, Arkansas
    Logan Thomas, Virginia Tech
    Geno Smith, West Virginia
    *Brandon Weeden, Oklahoma State

    Tier 4
    Keith Price, Washington
    *Brock Osweiler, Arizona State
    E.J. Manuel, Florida State


    Translation: 2012 was supposed to be the year of the quarterback, but with Matt Barkley returning it’s shaping up so that 2013 is that year. Granted, there will be no Andrew Luck next season, there are quite a few players who could shoot up boards with impressive final years. In other words, if you can’t get Andrew Luck or RG3, there’s no need to panic and reach for the next best quarterback.


    Running Back

    Tier 1
    *Trent Richardson, Alabama
    Marcus Lattimore, South Carolina
    Michael Dyer, Auburn

    Tier 2
    Giovani Bernard, North Carolina
    *David Wilson, Virginia Tech
    *Lamar Miller, Miami
    *Doug Martin, Boise State
    Knile Davis, Arkansas

    Tier 3
    Le’Veon Bell, Michigan State
    Montee Ball, Wisconsin
    Ray Graham, Pittsburgh
    *Robert Turbin, Utah State
    *Chris Polk, Washington
    Zach Stacy, Vanderbilt

    Translation: 2013 could end up as one of the best running back groups ever – which makes Montee Ball returning all the more confusing. After Tier 2, you may just be better off waiting for next year or picking up a rental. If there were a Tier 4, it would be comprised of several more prospects not in the 2012 draft, with so many of them just seething with potential but not thick enough resumes to include in this list.

    Wide Receiver

    Tier 1
    Robert Woods, USC
    *Justin Blackmon, Oklahoma State
    Keenan Allen, California
    Marquess Wilson, Washington State

    Tier 2
    *Michael Floyd, Notre Dame
    *Alshon Jeffery, South Carolina
    Justin Hunter, Tennessee
    Da’Rick Rogers, Tennessee
    *Kendall Wright, Baylor
    Cobi Hamilton, Arkansas
    Kenny Stills, Oklahoma

    Translation: Are you sure that you want to take Justin Blackmon top 5? The college level is completely loaded at the WR position, don’t feel the need to reach for one in 2012.

    Tight End

    Tier 1
    *Dwayne Allen, Clemson
    Tyler Eifert, Notre Dame
    *Coby Fleener, Stanford
    *Orson Charles, Georgia
    Joseph Fauria, UCLA
    Philip Lutzenkurchen, Auburn

    Tier 2
    *Michael Egnew, Missouri
    Jordan Reed, Florida
    Jake Stoneburner, Ohio State
    Chris Gragg, Arkansas
    *Ladarius Green, ULL

    Translation: 2012 has an edge in the Joker TE/WR department, but severely lacks at the in-line blocking category. Rather than taking on a project of trying to mold a Joker into a blocker, you may just be better off waiting for one of the guys in 2013.

    Offensive Tackle

    Tier 1
    *Matt Kalil, USC

    Tier 2
    *Riley Reiff, Iowa
    *Jonathan Martin, Stanford
    Barrett Jones, Alabama
    Seantrel Henderson, Miami
    Jake Matthews, Texas A&M
    D.J. Fluker, Alabama
    Luke Joeckel, Texas A&M
    Chris Faulk, LSU
    Chaz Green, Florida

    Translation: After the big 3 (Kalil, Reiff, and Martin) there is no need to reach for a tackle if that is what your team needs. I’m looking at you, NFL team considering drafting Mike Adams in the top 20.

    Interior Offensive Linemen

    Tier 1
    *David DeCastro, Stanford
    Chance Warmack, Alabama

    Tier 2
    *Peter Konz, Wisconsin
    *Cordy Glenn, Georgia
    Andrew Norwell, Ohio State
    James Hurst, UNC
    Omoregie Uzzi, Georgia Tech
    *Brandon Washington, Miami

    Translation: This year and the next are going to be two of the best guard classes ever. If you miss out on stud David DeCastro, there are plenty of consolation prizes to go around.

    4-3 Defensive End

    Tier X
    Jackson Jeffcoat, Texas
    Barkevious Mingo, LSU
    *Melvin Ingram, South Carolina
    Corey Lemonier, Auburn
    *Whitney Mercilus, Illinois
    Sam Montgomery, LSU
    Kareem Martin, UNC
    *Nick Perry, USC

    Tier X.5
    Alex Okafor, Texas
    Dion Jordan, Oregon
    Brandon Jenkins, FSU
    *Chandler Jones, Syracuse

    Translation: Yuck. The 2012 class is so full of question marks that they don’t even get to be considered tier 1. On the other hand, the college pool is very talented but lacks the production to justify being called tier 1 either. Thus, tier X and X.5 it is. Still, pass rushers tend to break out in their final years in school, so keep an eye on these guys still in school. If I had to choose, I’d take my chances on a DE from the 2013 class outshining those of the 2012 class once they are draft eligible.

    3-4 Defensive End

    Tier 1
    *Quinton Coples, UNC
    Dominique Easley, Florida
    Bjoern Werner, FSU
    William Gholston, Michigan State

    Tier 2
    *Devon Still, PSU
    *Jared Crick, Nebraska
    Bennie Logan, LSU
    John Simon, OSU
    *Kendall Reyes, Connecticut
    Margus Hunt, SMU

    Translation: Both classes are solid but the monster potential of having 3 players in tier 1 gives a slight edge to 2013.

    Defensive/Nose Tackle

    Tier 1
    Sharrif Floyd, Florida
    John Hankins, OSU
    *Fletcher Cox, Mississippi State

    Tier 2
    *Michael Brockers, LSU
    *Dontari Poe, Memphis
    Star Lotulelei, Utah
    Kawaan Short, Purdue

    Tier 3
    *Brandon Thompson, Clemson
    Kwame Geathers, Georgia
    *Jerel Worthy, Michigan State

    Translation: This year and next are super loaded at DT. There may not be a Ndamukong Suh standing out just yet, but there’s very good value here in both drafts.

    3-4 Outside Linebacker

    Tier 1
    Jarvis Jones, Georgia
    *Courtney Upshaw, Alabama

    Tier 2
    Sean Porter, Texas A&M
    Ronald Powell, Florida
    Damontre Moore, Texas A&M
    Barkevious Mingo, LSU

    Tier 3
    Chase Thomas, Stanford
    *Shea McClellin, Boise State
    Trevardo Williams, Connecticut
    *Ronnell Lewis, Oklahoma
    Nico Johnson, Alabama
    Roosevelt Nix, Kent State
    *Andre Branch, Clemson
    *Cam Johnson, Virginia

    Translation: This draft seriously needed Jarvis Jones and his pass rushing ability.

    4-3 Outside Linebacker

    Tier 1
    *Zach Brown, UNC
    *Bobby Wagner, Utah State
    Jelani Jenkins, Florida

    Tier 2
    *Lavonte David, Nebraska

    Tier 3
    Arthur Brown, Kansas State
    Khaseem Green, Rutgers
    Dion Bailey, USC
    *Terrell Manning, North Carolina State
    *Sean Spence, Miami
    *Josh Kaddu, Oregon
    Kenny Tate, Maryland

    Translation: Teams that need a 4-3 weakside linebacker are in luck.

    Inside Linebacker

    Tier 1
    *Luke Kuechly, Boston College
    Manti Te’o, Notre Dame
    Shayne Skov, Stanford

    Tier 2
    *Dont’a Hightower, Alabama
    Andrew Jackson, Western Kentucky
    Tom Wort, Oklahoma
    C.J. Mosley, Alabama
    Kevin Reddick, UNC

    Tier 3
    Bruce Taylor, Virginia Tech
    Dede Lattimore, USF

    Translation: There is a pretty large drop-off at middle linebacker after Kuechly and Hightower. If you miss out on them, your best bet is to wait.

    Cornerback

    Tier 1
    *Morris Claiborne, LSU
    David Amerson, North Carolina State

    Tier 2
    *Janoris Jenkins, North Alabama
    *Dre Kirkpatrick, Alabama
    Xavier Rhodes, FSU

    Tier 3
    *Stephon Gilmore, South Carolina
    *Jayron Hosley, Virginia Tech
    Johnthan Banks, Mississippi State
    Bud Noel, Wake Forest
    Ahmad Dixon, Baylor
    *Brandon Boykin, Georgia

    Tier 4
    *Chase Minnifield, Virginia
    Greg Reid, FSU
    *Leonard Johnson, Iowa State
    Dee Milliner, Alabama
    Tharold Simon, LSU
    *Alfonzo Dennard, Nebraska
    *Josh Robinson, UCF

    Translation: He may be really good, but looking at the big picture taking Morris Claiborne in the top 5 may not be the most thrify move to make.

    Safety

    Tier 1
    Tyrann Mathieu, LSU
    Lamarcus Joyner, FSU
    Eric Reid, LSU

    Tier 2
    *Mark Barron, Alabama
    Matt Elam, Florida
    T.J. McDonald, USC
    Bacarri Rambo, Georgia
    Robert Lester, Alabama
    Ray-Ray Armstrong, Miami

    Tier 3
    *Harrison Smith, Notre Dame
    Prentiss Wagner, Tennessee
    Kenny Vaccaro, Texas

    Translation: Don’t even think about reaching for a Safety this year. Personally, I’m not sure I would take one at all in 2012 as 2013 could be the first strong Safety class in years.




    Follow Mike Daneshgar on Twitter
    Why so SERIOUS

  • #2
    Re: Reach in 2012 or wait until 2013

    I wouldn't mind getting Damontre Moore or Sean Porter from Texas A&M.
    FOLLOW ME: @WarnerSays

    IU > Kentucky

    Biggest PHILLIES PHAN in Indiana

    “And as I go,I go with just a few words left to say,a few words I want to address to Colts fans everywhere, thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. I truly have enjoyed being your quarterback. Thank you.”
    - Peyton Manning

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Reach in 2012 or wait until 2013

      Originally posted by _The_Future_ View Post
      I wouldn't mind getting Damontre Moore or Sean Porter from Texas A&M.
      Humm have not seen them play but I definetly think that if the Jerry Hughes, and Robert Mathis thing does not work out we will have to address that position. Have u watched a lot of Texas A&M football, if so what do you think of Jeff Fuller?
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment

      Working...
      X