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

NFL.com on the Colts Draft

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

  • #31
    Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

    Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
    If you could read my post you would understand the difference financially and mr. Polian was not the best at manipulating his cap figures. See just about every contract (bethea in particular)...players aren't gonna take a paycut to stay on a bad team. Its just reality. Read before calling something "BS" skip, I mean olblu
    And you didn't read that my scenario was with the Colts going 10-6 with a healthy Peyton Manning returning...... They would have found a way.... So, do a little reading. They would have been signing on for a run at another division championship and a possible Super Bowl run....

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      And you didn't read that my scenario was with the Colts going 10-6 with a healthy Peyton Manning returning...... They would have found a way.... So, do a little reading. They would have been signing on for a run at another division championship and a possible Super Bowl run....
      But being a 10-6 team runs into my point. THEY AREN'T. Winning teams get guys who take pay cuts so they can win more. 8-8 teams and losing teams just don't because people on those teams realize that it's highly unlikely that their pay cut is going to make a difference. Read posts before you post. Remember, you have to have the players ok to do ALL THOSE THINGS.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

        Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
        But being a 10-6 team runs into my point. THEY AREN'T. Winning teams get guys who take pay cuts so they can win more. 8-8 teams and losing teams just don't because people on those teams realize that it's highly unlikely that their pay cut is going to make a difference. Read posts before you post. Remember, you have to have the players ok to do ALL THOSE THINGS.
        Who said anything about taking pay cuts? The Colts wouldn't have had to to that. Do you think players take less money to play with the Pats?

        This is a business. Players go where the money is. The Colts could have kept Manning, traded Luck for a boat load of picks over two seasons and kept most of their good players....

        Do you think Mathis would have taken less money to join a good team like the Pats or NY Giants?

        Do you think Freeney would accept reworking his deal to take less money to play for the Packers?

        Irsay did a number on you. That man lied is *** off the entire season about everything and made sure the season ticket holders were locked in before he starting exterminating the Colts..... All of these draft picks and do mean all of them are 50/50 to be good players in the NFL when you factor in injuries and everything else. That is why they will not rebuild from this mess in three years. That would take an incredible run of good fortune (note I did not say "Luck").........

        The die is cast, lets get behind them and see what they can do. You can't fire any owner anyway (damnit)......

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
          I believe Brady went out for the season early a few seasons ago and the Pats slipped to 11 wins with a QB that had not started a game since high school.....
          So you want to adjust the timeline to 10 years?

          Point is the end is near for the Pats it just may take 4 more years before Brady hangs it up and they start to rebuild.

          To answer your question to Dgreen the Colts couldn't keep Manning and everyone else plus trade down and draft RG3. That combo would take up 17% of the cap and add in the Freeney and thats another 15%. Keep adding a Dallas clark, Addai, Bracket and the available cap space becomes smaller and smaller.

          IRsay said the Colts were 10 million cash over cap and Polain before he was fired said the colts were 8 million cash over cap for last year.

          IF you subtract Collins 4 million and no one else leaving the team then your easily well over the cap number even with the expections to the cap ceiling.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            So you want to adjust the timeline to 10 years?

            Point is the end is near for the Pats it just may take 4 more years before Brady hangs it up and they start to rebuild.

            To answer your question to Dgreen the Colts couldn't keep Manning and everyone else plus trade down and draft RG3. That combo would take up 17% of the cap and add in the Freeney and thats another 15%. Keep adding a Dallas clark, Addai, Bracket and the available cap space becomes smaller and smaller.

            IRsay said the Colts were 10 million cash over cap and Polain before he was fired said the colts were 8 million cash over cap for last year.

            IF you subtract Collins 4 million and no one else leaving the team then your easily well over the cap number even with the expections to the cap ceiling.
            I didn't suggest they keep Manning and draft RGIII. I would have drafted a QB in the second round, say the one the Broncos drafted to back up Manning and develop. I would have used all of those draft picks we would have reaped to sign good defensive players and eventual replacements for stars like Freeney and Mathis.... That would have been easy to do. That cap can always be manipulated. Several deals could have been reworked to provide more space and pay guaranteed money down the line. Some players could have been dropped like Bracket because Angerer had already replaced him. Saturday could have been let go too to make room and let a replacement come in. Those two alone would have taken a lot out of the cap. I would have let Wayne walk and kept Garcon' and signed a high draft pick to replace Wayne. I would have let Dallas go and resigned Tamme..... (Peyton will make him a pro bowler (if they have one)...... I might have led Addai go and signed an RB (Brown isn't the answer there). There were lots of ways to rebuild and keep on winning. I don't think the Pats will hit rock bottom when Brady is done. I think they will have already rebuilt around him and will have been developing a QB to takeover. I suggest they will keep right on winning....... the good teams always seem to do that........

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              Who said anything about taking pay cuts? The Colts wouldn't have had to to that. Do you think players take less money to play with the Pats?

              This is a business. Players go where the money is. The Colts could have kept Manning, traded Luck for a boat load of picks over two seasons and kept most of their good players....

              Do you think Mathis would have taken less money to join a good team like the Pats or NY Giants?

              Do you think Freeney would accept reworking his deal to take less money to play for the Packers?

              Irsay did a number on you. That man lied is *** off the entire season about everything and made sure the season ticket holders were locked in before he starting exterminating the Colts..... All of these draft picks and do mean all of them are 50/50 to be good players in the NFL when you factor in injuries and everything else. That is why they will not rebuild from this mess in three years. That would take an incredible run of good fortune (note I did not say "Luck").........

              The die is cast, lets get behind them and see what they can do. You can't fire any owner anyway (damnit)......
              I am not saying they would take less money to "relocate" and yes in most cases you have to take less money,TRUST ME. I studied this for quite a while. I couldn't pick Jim Irsay out of a line-up. You on the other hand just make up whatever you want to affirm your beliefs.
              Lets go back to your talk about the people who thought that RG3 was a better QB than Luck:
              Bill Parcells: He drafted Chad Henne. Quincy Carter? Drew Bledsoe (In a smaller fashion)?
              Brian Billick: Do I need to remind anyone of Kyle Boller? Elvis Gerbac? Steve McNair? Tony Banks? Anthony Wright?
              Phil Simms: Is he ever right?
              So this is my point. You just find some random draft guy who agrees with you and you say "I must be right look at this!" Consider the source.
              That's my final comment to you because no matter how much evidence is piled up in front of you to the contrary, You just gonna troll...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                I am not saying they would take less money to "relocate" and yes in most cases you have to take less money,TRUST ME. I studied this for quite a while. I couldn't pick Jim Irsay out of a line-up. You on the other hand just make up whatever you want to affirm your beliefs.
                Lets go back to your talk about the people who thought that RG3 was a better QB than Luck:
                Bill Parcells: He drafted Chad Henne. Quincy Carter? Drew Bledsoe (In a smaller fashion)?
                Brian Billick: Do I need to remind anyone of Kyle Boller? Elvis Gerbac? Steve McNair? Tony Banks? Anthony Wright?
                Phil Simms: Is he ever right?
                So this is my point. You just find some random draft guy who agrees with you and you say "I must be right look at this!" Consider the source.
                That's my final comment to you because no matter how much evidence is piled up in front of you to the contrary, You just gonna troll...
                So, Parcells, Sims and Billick have no credibility? Several Super Bowls in there. Everyone makes mistakes. You want to go over some of Irsay's draft busts? Bill Polian is probably the best general manager in NFL history. He built Super Bowl teams in three different places and given the opportunity and if he has enough time (he is getting old), he could do it again. I do consider these sources and I find them very credible indeed..... There are others who also agree with them like the folks who wrote the article that started this thread...... So, I repeat, in my eyes, you are the troll here who doesn't know what he talking about in regard to the cap and the talent..... RGIII is going to be a super star, Luck ain't ........

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  Who said anything about taking pay cuts? The Colts wouldn't have had to to that. Do you think players take less money to play with the Pats?
                  Brandon Llyod said this about the Pats before he signed.
                  “Winning is definitely the highest priority,” he said. “I’ve been in the league for ten years now and I don’t look at the NFL as a place where I can hoard money and get as much as I can because it’s the end of the world.”
                  Chad Ochocinco
                  ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports that Ochocinco restructured his contract for the 2012 season, lowering his base salary from $3 million to $1 million.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                    I would like to know what Olblu would be willing to bet on Luck being a bust. I am dead serious. If he isn't a bust I think an IP ban is needed lol

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                      We would not even be able to agree on what was a bust....... Peyton Manning was run out of town to make room for this man. I would think if he isn't 75% of what Peyton has been, he is a bust.... What is your definition and why should I be banned? Why shouldn't you be banned for demanding that I agree with your views?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                        If he had not done that, Ochocinco would have been out of the NFL..... I don't see these as examples of people taking less to play on good teams. I see them taking less to just stay in the game....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                          Lloyd took less money to be on the pats and its assinine to suggest he would be out of the league if the pats didn't sign him. He had a better offer from other teams but he want to win.

                          I could come up more examples but I don't think it would matter.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                            75% of Peyton has been is a bust? That is just laughable.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                              My point is if the guy is willing to back-up his opinion with actual fact and not just throw up the :BS: flag I am cool with it. In my opinion, Olblu is just trying to stir up **** and get responses. It's all fascinating to be honest because what has he actually said
                              "Statistically RG3 was the better QB"
                              "Statistics can be skewed in any fashion you want."
                              So which one is it? You have an opinion? That's cool but be consistent and don't just respond in whatever fashion is good for that point.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                I didn't suggest they keep Manning and draft RGIII. I would have drafted a QB in the second round, say the one the Broncos drafted to back up Manning and develop. I would have used all of those draft picks we would have reaped to sign good defensive players and eventual replacements for stars like Freeney and Mathis.... That would have been easy to do. That cap can always be manipulated. Several deals could have been reworked to provide more space and pay guaranteed money down the line. Some players could have been dropped like Bracket because Angerer had already replaced him. Saturday could have been let go too to make room and let a replacement come in. Those two alone would have taken a lot out of the cap. I would have let Wayne walk and kept Garcon' and signed a high draft pick to replace Wayne. I would have let Dallas go and resigned Tamme..... (Peyton will make him a pro bowler (if they have one)...... I might have led Addai go and signed an RB (Brown isn't the answer there). There were lots of ways to rebuild and keep on winning. I don't think the Pats will hit rock bottom when Brady is done. I think they will have already rebuilt around him and will have been developing a QB to takeover. I suggest they will keep right on winning....... the good teams always seem to do that........
                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                I didn't suggest they keep Manning and draft RGIII. I would have drafted a QB in the second round, say the one the Broncos drafted to back up Manning and develop. I would have used all of those draft picks we would have reaped to sign good defensive players and eventual replacements for stars like Freeney and Mathis.... That would have been easy to do. That cap can always be manipulated. Several deals could have been reworked to provide more space and pay guaranteed money down the line. Some players could have been dropped like Bracket because Angerer had already replaced him. Saturday could have been let go too to make room and let a replacement come in. Those two alone would have taken a lot out of the cap. I would have let Wayne walk and kept Garcon' and signed a high draft pick to replace Wayne. I would have let Dallas go and resigned Tamme..... (Peyton will make him a pro bowler (if they have one)...... I might have led Addai go and signed an RB (Brown isn't the answer there). There were lots of ways to rebuild and keep on winning. I don't think the Pats will hit rock bottom when Brady is done. I think they will have already rebuilt around him and will have been developing a QB to takeover. I suggest they will keep right on winning....... the good teams always seem to do that........
                                The fact that you think not resigning Saturday and cutting Bracket would save a lot of money tells me that you have no clue about their contracts at all.

                                IF you cut a player their dead money still counts against the cap. Cutting Bracket will save very little in 2012. All that backloading of contracts comes due when the players are cut which is why it doesn't work like your describing.

                                For the 2012 season the Colts have to play with a cap number of around 82 million because 38 million will be dead money. This is why what you suggest is so ridiculous in the first place. Even with cutting guys they didn't have the money to resign Mathis, Garcon and Tamme.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X