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 2012 Forecast by USA Today

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

  • NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

    I paid $5 to buy this today to see where our Colts would be listed. The forecast was made after the 2012 draft. No big surprise to me (but probably to several here who think the Colts will win six games or even get to .500) the Colts were listed in the Power Poll as team number 32, dead last. I did note that Jacksonville is listed as 31.

    I noted that they predict that Garcon will have his first 1000 yard season in Washington with RGIII chucking him the ball. Washington was listed at 25 but other writeups indicated that they would not be overly suprised to see Washington threaten the Giants for the top spot in that division.

    Denver is listed as number 11 and the top team in their conference.

    The Giants are number one, Packers at two, and New England at three. San Francisco is at four, Houston at five, Philly at six, Ravens at seven, New Orleans at eight, Detroit at nine and Atlanta at ten.

    Interesting reading as always. The experts seem to think it will be a difficult change for the Colts to go 3-4 and the personel they have don't fit that system well.......



    Lord help our Colts.......

  • #2
    Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    I paid $5 to buy this today to see where our Colts would be listed. The forecast was made after the 2012 draft. No big surprise to me (but probably to several here who think the Colts will win six games or even get to .500) the Colts were listed in the Power Poll as team number 32, dead last. I did note that Jacksonville is listed as 31.

    I noted that they predict that Garcon will have his first 1000 yard season in Washington with RGIII chucking him the ball. Washington was listed at 25 but other writeups indicated that they would not be overly suprised to see Washington threaten the Giants for the top spot in that division.

    Denver is listed as number 11 and the top team in their conference.

    The Giants are number one, Packers at two, and New England at three. San Francisco is at four, Houston at five, Philly at six, Ravens at seven, New Orleans at eight, Detroit at nine and Atlanta at ten.

    Interesting reading as always. The experts seem to think it will be a difficult change for the Colts to go 3-4 and the personel they have don't fit that system well.......



    Lord help our Colts.......
    So the USA today that predicted that the 49ers would come in last in their division last year is now the arbiter of truth? If Denver is the highest ranked team in the AFC at 11 then the AFC is the weakest conference in the history of mankind...Garcon is not a great receiver...he just isn't. Flashy? Highlight guy? Yes of course but when it comes to plays mad between the hashes he is just ok. His hands are below average, (Don't show his highlight reel catches because you can show just as many easy catches he just drops)...I would much rather have a guy like Wayne even for the years he has left than Garcon. I would really like to see you for once recognize opposite opinions instead of scouring for ones that do. I don't think the Colts are going to be very good this year, they just won't but it may end up paying big dividends in the future.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

      :shakeheadWell we all know USA Today is never wrong in their predictions of the quality of the teams a full four months before the season ever begins. USA Today has a great reputation for its in-depth football discussion and analysis.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

        Here is my "expert" opinion: The Colts will win 5-6 games in 2012, will sign some free agents in the off-season with the cap space they have and that, combined with the growth that young guys like Luck and Flener will have over the course of the next year, will put the Colts in solid position to win the division in 2013. Houston is the only good team in the division, but I'm not going to fret about them owning the division for the next 5 years after one 10-6 season.

        RGIII has to play in the tough NFC East which contains three easily better teams in the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles. As I've said before, the Redskins have a very tough schedule next year. I will not be surprised at all if the Colts actually win more games.

        The NFC is the better conference right now. There are only two wildcard spots to be had and I think you have to immediately concede that the Lions will take one of them every year in the near future (and if they were to actually win the division then it will be GB who gets a wildcard spot). Also, Chicago will be a major playoff contender in future years if they can stay healthy. Let's not forget how solid they were last year before Cutler and other guys went down. If say the Giants win the NFC East, then Dallas and Philly will be contending for wildcards. Atlanta will do, assuming that NO wins the division (I still think they will because of Brees).

        Washington has a HUGE mountain to climb if they are going to make the playoffs anytime soon.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

          Since you disagree with USA Today about Garcon~ (I think they have it just about right), here is the entire mention:

          Pierre Garcon` Washington Redskins

          Moving to a new team with a rookie starting quarterback wouldn't seem to be recipe for success, but Garcon` will be the undisputed man in Washington. And if you peek at Mike Shanahan's track record, you'll notice the top two receivers and the No. 1 tight end hog all of the action in his offense. As the Redskins' primary target last season, journeyman Jabar Gaffney posted better stats (68 catches, 947 yards, five TDs) than Reggie Wayne, Michael Crabtree and Santonio Holmes. And Garcon is a major upgrade over Gaffney.
          Robert Grffin III is a perfect fit for the offense that helped Elway win two Super Bowls and made a 4,000-yard passer out of Jake Plummer. Who cares how many picks he throws in year one? He'll lift Garcon` to his first 1,000-yard season and 10 touchdowns are a possibility.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

            How about a little something to back up your predictions for the Colts? Every publication I have seen this year predicts 0 to 2 wins this year and most would think the Colts will struggle to win 6 games over the next three years. That is not necessarily a bad thing and teams that choose to completely rebuild often take years to do it. I think the Colts have a bigger mountain to climb to get to six wins in an year in the near future than Washington has to make the playoffs. I am anxious to see what NO does. USA Today also thinks they will still be very good and they rate them slightly ahead of the Falcons........ Those teams that rise from nowhere to suddenly make the playoffs have some talent on the teams ala the 49ers. The Colts have Luck, no offensive line, and defensive personel that do not fit a 3-4. This team may give up 30 points per game. I certainly think they will rank dead last on defense. That is lot for Luck to overcome and he just won't be able to do it if he does have a decent you. I think a decent year would be 20-24 TDs and 20 INTs......... Lord Help our Colts......

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

              I doubt many of these "experts" watched the majority of Colts game last year. Well I think I watched 14 of them and we had a chance at winning several of the ones we lost, particularly at the beginning of the season, but we just couldn't close them out because we happened to have the two worst QB's in the league in Collins and Painter.

              As things were, we had a chance at good winning against Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Tampa, KC, and Carolina. Those were all very close games that we could have won. As time went on, the team began to get mentally depressed with the losing and thus we started to get blown out a lot before finally getting a couple of wins in December. But early on, we had chances to win games but just couldn't get enough offense because we had such putrid QB's. Luck, even as a struggling rookie, is likely to be much better than Painter or Collins ever were last year. Put a rookie Luck on that team last year and we likely have several more wins. I mean, he couldn't be any worse than those two bums were. So that's one reason I think we have a chance at winning 5-6. But that's not to say that I'll be surprised if we only win 3 games. During Manning's rookie season, we actually had a chance to win several more games IIRC and were actually leading some of them late, but we were a young team who couldn't close out.

              http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/schedule.../ind/year/2011

              Also, we have an extremely easy home schedule. I've mentioned this several times. Just look at it, the only really tough game is Green Bay.

              2013 is the big year. By then, this years' rookies will have had a year of experience and we can hopefully add some free agents in the off-season. If we don't make a legit push at winning the division in 2013 then I will be a bit disappointed.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-20-2012, 02:41 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                It's simple - don't feed the trolls.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                  Dammit all I ask is that if you do decide to respond to the troll that you do so without quoting it. Is that too much to ask?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                    You are looking through rose colored glasses. Painter and Collins were not good but Denver got to the playoffs with a QB whose passing stats were not much better than Painter's. I doubt that a rookie QB would have meant any more wins. My own guess is that the Colts will not win 10 games over the next three seasons. They are not as good right now as they were last year and you add a rookie QB to that mix and they will be fortunate to win one game. However, put me down for paying for a nice dinner for you if you are right about winning five or six games next year. I just don't see anyone outside of a few Indy fans who believe that. I think they might win that many games in 2014, not 2013. I know the hecklers are calling me a troll but I remind you that I posted what a major service thought and I assure you they saw all 16 games as did I. One is not a troll when merely reporting what is being written around the country. Now, you may not like what they had to say but I have no see any evidence of any service or an expert outside of Indiana predicting any kind of success for the next three years. There are more than a few of those experts who think the Colts will have the number one pick in the draft for three years in a row. I doubt that but I think two years in a row is just about a cinch.........

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      They are not as good right now as they were last year and you add a rookie QB to that mix and they will be fortunate to win one game. However, put me down for paying for a nice dinner for you if you are right about winning five or six games next year.

                      St. Elmo?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                        I will be shocked (and almost willing to buy every colts fan who posts here at PD a dinner at Mortons) if the Redskins won 8 games.

                        This team has a lot of work left to do, not to mention a rookie QB

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                          You bet....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                            I think they will do at least that well and perhaps better. If RGIII has Cam Newton type impact, they will do better than that.......

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NFL 2012 Forecast by USA Today

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              I will be shocked (and almost willing to buy every colts fan who posts here at PD a dinner at Mortons) if the Redskins won 8 games.

                              This team has a lot of work left to do, not to mention a rookie QB
                              That's my point as well. I think Orakpo is a lot like freeney/Mathis btw, so I figure the transformation of those two won't be as hard as some make it out to be...I think Garcon isn't a bad two but add in his frequency of dropped passes, lack of blocking Skills for and just in general IQ lacking plays, I wouldn't be shocked if his year doesn't match his salary.
                              I am a Rams fan so tbh, I don't have a dog in this fight...Just calling it as my college football playing experience taught me to call it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X