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

Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

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

  • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    That wasn't my intention, but it reads wrong. 13 PPG was the Steelers average their last SB season. Sorry about the confusion.

    Also, to be clear, I'm not saying the alternative strategy I'm talking about is the only way, but it is a lower- risk alternative. Many of the bottom teams in the NFL stay there for a long time chasing that strategy (that the Colts are currently following) through multiple iterations.
    I think your strategy changes depending on who is available and where you are in the draft, along with what pieces you already have. If you are picking 25th in the draft, you may not necessarily take a QB there and maybe shore up the line. But if you are picking #1, and you have a QB available that's so highly sought after, you are better off in the long run taking this QB rather than trading for picks (which might be a better strategy if there is no great QB available).
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

    Comment


    • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

      ChiJ, let me clarify that I *DO* hope that the Colts build their new team in a way that is similar to what you advocate. I want the new management to spend a lot of picks and money on the lines and defensive positions. If we don't sign beef up the lines with our cap space next year then I am going to be awfully disappointed. But I just don't think that drafting Luck with one single draft pick prevents us from doing the type of stuff that you endorse. If Luck is worth his salt, then we hopefully don't have to worry about the QB position for a long time and can invest money into the type of things that you think is important. These aren't mutually exclusive things. You can have a good QB that also has a good D like the Pats have for a decent chunk of the Brady years, or the Giants have with Eli. It's not easy to do, but I hope that's what we strive for.

      I hope Luck is the best QB he can be, but I also hope that it's not a repeat of the Manning years in the sense that I don't want a team that is over-reliant on offense. I want a more physical team this go around. It's hard to argue with the type of football that you advocate because it's succeeded time and time again. But I just don't think that us spending one pick on a QB, a position we clearly needed drastic help with, has to prevent us from doing any of that.

      Comment


      • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        I was just saying the same thing to the other admins. Man, if I were to get kicked off a board I can't imagine that I'd ever want to go back to it for any reason. I'd move on. That's the way I'd live my life. And yet famously we've got a long history of people that try to sneak back in after they've pushed us far as we can take it.

        I just don't get it.
        Well.... let me tell you... It ain't that easy to just walk away.
        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


        • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          That wasn't my intention, but it reads wrong. 13 PPG was the Steelers average their last SB season. Sorry about the confusion.

          Also, to be clear, I'm not saying the alternative strategy I'm talking about is the only way, but it is a lower- risk alternative. Many of the bottom teams in the NFL stay there for a long time chasing that strategy (that the Colts are currently following) through multiple iterations.
          Ah! That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            I disagree.There are several that would start on the lines first and address the skills positions next. Football games are still won in the trenches.

            I wouldn't ever put a franchise QB behind a makeshift line. I'd fix the line first, and those are the "weapons" that Luck needs - not receivers. You need a very, very, very good QB. We agree on that. But a best-in-generation QB is not very valuable when he's on his back, or hearing footsteps, or on crutches, or has no one to hand the ball to, or barely has time to throw a quick-read pass.

            There is more than one way to do build a team and the high-risk, high-reward stuff can bring about high rewards some of the time. Who would have ever thought, even in the year 2000, that we'd see a Colts-Saints Super Bowl? Two franchises with decades of poor management desperate for one of their franchise QBs to pan out. We have no idea who the Super Bowl contenders will be three years out. Many of you would argue that it will be the team with the best QB. I think it will be the team with the best lines, as the best OL can make a very, very, very good QB look like a great QB and an average line can make a superstar QB look average.
            Ya I am not so certain most NFL FO's would start out on the lines. Geshh even the big Tuna admitted that he maybe should have taken Matt Ryan over Jake Long and Matt Ryan wasn't as hyped as Andrew Luck.

            Something that I think you are also missing here is that mediocre line can look great with a star QB just as much as average QB can look great with an above offensive line.

            This is what we saw with Peyton and he was one of the least hit Qb's in the league. The main point is that you don't ignore the problem and I caution you not to judge too soon on Grigson based on one draft and one FA signing period.

            Choosing a QB first then building a line is no more risker than building a line first then choosing a QB later. Both have won superbowls and the other factor in all of this is FA signings that just seems to get ignored here.

            I mean you don't start from nothing and likewise Grigson already had a decent LT and this team only gave up 35 sacks last season. They were middle of the road when you look at sacks and Qb hits so these few tweaks to the O-line aren't a end all be all of protecting your QB.

            Offensive play calling affects this and QB recognition of blitz packages also come into play. I mean you can have one of the least hit QB's in the NFL and still get him hurt like was the case of Ryan Fitzpatrick last year.

            Most importantly I don't think anyone is happy with the offensive line play and I don't think it will ruin Luck this year for two simple reasons. He is smarter than most Qb's drafted and he is just as dedicated at film study and protecting himself from getting hit. This isn't David Carr we are talking about and this isn't the Houston Texan porous line.

            I by no means think this is a great line but it has more talent and better personnel than the Texans did in 2002.

            The 2013 cap space will help Luck from getting ruined by terrible offensive line and I fully expect Grigson to draft some O-line men in 2013 and if it was up to me I would spend the money on some proven vets that need no time to develop than use an early first on a RT or G.

            Either way I don't believe Grigson has pingeon holed himself in some high risk high reward rebuild like you suggested. In fact by making those cuts in 2011 he his more flexible to fill the holes with proven guys on both sides of the ball.
            Last edited by Gamble1; 08-29-2012, 03:56 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

              David Carr had a bad o-line, but David Carr also was a statue in the pocket, seemed to have zero ability to recognize pass rush and held on to the ball entirely too long.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                What ChicagoJ is really trying to say is that if you have an elite line, you can get away with having an average QB like Ben.

                Comment


                • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  What ChicagoJ is really trying to say is that if you have an elite line, you can get away with having an average QB like Ben.
                  I wish we had an elite line! Then we could run the ball down people's throats all game long. The only way we survive with an average QB like Ben is that he's difficult to tackle. And defense.

                  I don't have a good feeling about the upcoming season for the Steelers.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                    If ever a movie was made about Ben, he'd be played by Will Farrell. Lol, sorry, I have a hard time taking Rapelisberger seriously, he looks like he's just a mullet/rat-tail away from looking like a true backwoods beer-guzzling redneck.

                    He is a playmaker though, gotta give it to him. He doesn't look like your typical NFL QB, but he'll take the most broken-down ugly play that looks like it's heading toward a bad ending and stumble his way into some crazy completion that leaves you goin', "Huh? What just happened... not understanding....."
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                      Originally posted by travmil View Post
                      What ChicagoJ is really trying to say is that if you have an elite line, you can get away with having an average QB like Ben.
                      I know you are joking but Ben IMO will be a HOF quarterback. Don't get me wrong I think he is a bottom tier HOF qb but he is as clutch as they get. Just to nail this point home to people when you compare him to a superior QB in Aaron Rodgers he has 6 more 4th quarter game winning drives than AR in the same time period.

                      Even if they don't have the same number of opportunities he still has more GWD's over Aaron.

                      So with that said I think Ben is a great QB that often times gets under valued by a lot of people incuding Steeler fans. Now take Matt Schuab and I think thats just a "good" QB with a great line which I don't think can win a Superbowl with Chicago J's team building concepts.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 08-30-2012, 02:03 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I know you are joking but Ben IMO will be a HOF quarterback. Don't get me wrong I think he is a bottom tier HOF qb but he is as clutch as they get. Just to nail this point home to people when you compare him to a superior QB in Aaron Rodgers he has 6 more 4th quarter game winning drives than AR in the same time period.

                        Even if they don't have the same number of opportunities he still has more GWD's over Aaron.

                        So with that said I think Ben is a great QB that often times gets under valued by a lot of people incuding Steeler fans. Now take Matt Schuab and I think thats just a "good" QB with a great line which I don't think can win a Superbowl with Chicago J's team building concepts.
                        HOF? I can't get over his first SB performance. What an atrocious affair. The only reason they've won 2 SBs is because of the running game, their ridiculous defense, and Ben's ability to be difficult to sack (and he still gets sacked a lot).
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                          Yea his style is definitely not my favorite, but he's gotten it done at certain points. I'm not sure if he's HoF-caliber, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if he did squeak in. His stats aren't all-world, he's had injury issues, and he's had off-the-field issues, so that might be enough to keep him out.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                            HOF? I can't get over his first SB performance. What an atrocious affair. The only reason they've won 2 SBs is because of the running game, their ridiculous defense, and Ben's ability to be difficult to sack (and he still gets sacked a lot).
                            No doubt he was terrible in that game and the refs were no better but his overall record of come backs and game winners are just too many to ignore. He will go down as a HOF eventually IMO.

                            One thing that gets ignored is that rarely do teams have a good o-line in both pass blocking and run blocking. Those guys are rare and the Steelers have come to rely on Bens ability to create offense out of terrible pass blocking and its even worse now since they are no longer good at run blocking either.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                              I don't agree. The only reason we've won two SBs and played in another in the past decade is our defense.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • Re: Another Colts Trade - Could be big - Irsay Tweet

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                That wasn't my intention, but it reads wrong. 13 PPG was the Steelers average their last SB season. Sorry about the confusion.

                                Also, to be clear, I'm not saying the alternative strategy I'm talking about is the only way, but it is a lower- risk alternative. Many of the bottom teams in the NFL stay there for a long time chasing that strategy (that the Colts are currently following) through multiple iterations.
                                What you're saying is that you don't draft a Manning, Marino, Elway because without an elite line they can get hurt and not realize their potential or you need other pieces first. Tell me you wouldn't really pass on the guys mentioned. Peyton never had a really elite line.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X