Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Irsay sits down with Kravitz

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

  • #16
    Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

    "It’s not Peyton Manning, it’s not Jim Irsay, it’s circumstances and that why it’s happening.’ He understood we had to draft Luck; we weren’t going to trade him for picks. And he understood the cap room situation where, if he’d stayed, there would have been no Reggie Wayne, no Winston Justice, no Samson Satele, I’m not sure about Robert Mathis. We couldn’t have kept anybody. I mean, our offensive line would have been even worse than it was."

    Have to say he talks about Justice and Satele like they were some major acquisitions. Not bad players but no big time too.
    Silver lining at the end? Seems to me they know our OL was bad last season and they will address it properly in the off season...hopefully.
    Never forget

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Man, I hate when people say this. The dude was an amazing GM for damn near two decades, had a few poor years at the end. He built the best Pacer team in history. Why on earth would there not be love for him? Is this just the sentiment amongst younger people, who didn't really get to experience the pre-2000 Pacers? He rebuilt a wrecked Knicks squad, and now leads the #2 team in the East... He's proven over and over to be one of the top team architects in league history (all of whom go through some low periods). And still this is what he gets, even from his own fan base. My absolute best memories as a Pacer fan are all pre-2000, during the Walsh era. I have mad respect for the man. In that same vein, I hate when people rag on Polian, too. Yea, he was abrasive... yea, his last few years here left a bad taste... but he still brought us a decade of fantastic football and a Super Bowl. I understand it didn't end well, but you can't just dismiss the great things they did along the way.
      Not saying I agree with it or that's how I feel, just saying that's the general feeling you get from the board. I've defended Polian several times on PD. Walsh as well, although I admit I would be much more comfortable if I knew Pritchard was making the personnel decisions.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

        It would've been harder to find a GM that couldn't match Polian's 'success' at the helm of the Colts with Peyton Manning here. The bigger question in my mind is how many could've improved upon it, particularly on the one and dones in the playoffs.... keeping in mind Polian does have the 1 SB win and 2 appearances.
        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


        • #19
          Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

          I've had numerous Polian criticisms over the years, but I'm still a bit skeptical about this. I can totally see Polian getting aggravated with the contract negotiations and then out of frustration saying "F it, let's just trade him for a ton of assets!", without being completely serious about it. I think this smells of Irsay trying to come across as the "good guy" to the few who are still upset about losing Manning.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I've had numerous Polian criticisms over the years, but I'm still a bit skeptical about this. I can totally see Polian getting aggravated with the contract negotiations and then out of frustration saying "F it, let's just trade him for a ton of assets!", without being completely serious about it. I think this smells of Irsay trying to come across as the "good guy" to the few who are still upset about losing Manning.
            I'd think the Marshall Faulk trade might say otherwise...
            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


            • #21
              Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I'd think the Marshall Faulk trade might say otherwise...
              I still don't understand that trade. Marshall could have made Peyton's job a lot easier.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                Sounds like heat of the moment ranting that Polian never expected to be made public. Polian hate is basically living proof of "What have you done for me lately?" People hate on him when he brought in Saturday and Brackett as UDFAs and found Mathis, Bethea, Collie, Garcon, Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja, and Cato Junes in the late rounds.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                  Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                  ..If the Colts had beaten the Jaguars that day and ended up with the second pick in the draft, would they have drafted Robert Griffin III and let Manning go?

                  Irsay said yes.


                  He would have drafted RGIII, but put him in a less run-happy offense. “I wouldn’t have exposed him to injury in the same way they have in Washington,” Irsay said. “My philosophy on quarterbacks is, first and foremost, you’ve got to keep them healthy and on the field.”
                  Hmmmm, owners deciding how a QB is used in an offense. ;-)
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                    Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                    Sounds like heat of the moment ranting that Polian never expected to be made public. Polian hate is basically living proof of "What have you done for me lately?" People hate on him when he brought in Saturday and Brackett as UDFAs and found Mathis, Bethea, Collie, Garcon, Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja, and Cato Junes in the late rounds.
                    Polian Hate is proof that if you're going to be an arrogant a$$hat then you better back it up each and every year or expect to be called out on it when the mistakes start accumulating....
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                      Originally posted by owl View Post
                      Hmmmm, owners deciding how a QB is used in an offense. ;-)
                      Me personally, I don't see how an owner *wouldn't* have input. I've never quite understood this notion that owners throw millions into a team and then sit back and say nothing. That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what actually happens, in my experiences. I acn understand having a high-level control of the team and letting the managers do most of the grunt work, but I think it'd be naive as hell to think that owners are all clueless cash cows who provide zero input into a team they own. Maybe some have too much input and not enough understanding... I could maybe put Jerry Jones and Snyder into that category. But I would also say that those two guys run teams that have very high ticket/merchandise sales so on a business-level, their input seems to have a direct impact. On a football-level... eh. I guess it doesn't strike me as odd though that some owners may not have actual football in mind when it comes to their teams.

                      But Irsay... he's somewhere in between in my mind. He's somewhere between having somewhat of a football clue, but still also interested in straight revenue. Bottom line I'm sure is on his mind, but I could see him letting Grigson know his thoughts on Luck and protecting what he deems as a future cash cow. I know if *I* owned a team and I just drafted what was considered a top flight blue chip prospect, I'd be sure to let my thoughts known to whoever I had "running the show". I sure as hell would do everything I could, as an owner, to prevent what happened to RG3 this year.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-04-2013, 05:08 PM.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        I still don't understand that trade. Marshall could have made Peyton's job a lot easier.
                        If I remember right....Marshall didn't want any part of the rebuilding stage, or it was a money issue...I'm not sure, but, I think Marshall wanted out for one reason or another.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          I still don't understand that trade. Marshall could have made Peyton's job a lot easier.
                          Edge came in immediately after Faulk left and had one of the best seasons ever for a rookie running back in 1999 (1,553 yds). He followed that up with a spectacular 1,709 yards in his second season, but unfortunately got hurt badly in 2001 and wasn't really the same again until 2003. I don't think we missed Faulk too much. It's hard to be much better than Edge was in 1999 and 2000. Edge had more yards than Faulk in each of those two seasons (Faulk had 1,381 and 1,359).

                          Who knows just how great Edge could have been if it weren't for that injury? It cost him his third year and he really wasn't the same the next year either.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                            Originally posted by pogi View Post
                            If I remember right....Marshall didn't want any part of the rebuilding stage, or it was a money issue...I'm not sure, but, I think Marshall wanted out for one reason or another.
                            I remember it being money... and Polian bristled and dealt Faulk. And for not a really good deal either. The main thing I took away from this was that if you made Polian angry don't be surprised to see him deal you at the first chance, not necessarily the best deal for either of you.

                            So I could see him angry with Peyton and at least considering the option of trading him away to show him who is boss.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              So I could see him angry with Peyton and at least considering the option of trading him away to show him who is boss.

                              Marshall Faulk was a very good player here, but he did not have the stature as a Colt that Manning did in 2004 (league MVP, face of the league, etc). It's one thing to trade Marshall Faulk, but Polian had to have known that there's no way Irsay would have ever allowed him to trade away Peyton Manning. I'm not the biggest Polian fan, but I continue to believe that the comment was made in jest during the heat of the frustrating negotiations, i.e. "F this, let's just trade him!". I think Irsay is exaggerating it big time, and that he's trying to reach out to those still irritated with the Manning release by saying: "hey look, Polian was ready to ship him out of here, but I'm the reason he stayed all of these years!".

                              Polian is full of crap a lot of the time, but I don't think Irsay is exactly above bs'ing a bit......

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Irsay sits down with Kravitz

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Marshall Faulk was a very good player here, but he did not have the stature as a Colt that Manning did in 2004 (league MVP, face of the league, etc). It's one thing to trade Marshall Faulk, but Polian had to have known that there's no way Irsay would have ever allowed him to trade away Peyton Manning. I'm not the biggest Polian fan, but I continue to believe that the comment was made in jest during the heat of the frustrating negotiations, i.e. "F this, let's just trade him!". I think Irsay is exaggerating it big time, and that he's trying to reach out to those still irritated with the Manning release by saying: "hey look, Polian was ready to ship him out of here, but I'm the reason he stayed all of these years!".

                                Polian is full of crap a lot of the time, but I don't think Irsay is exactly above bs'ing a bit......
                                How seriously it was considered or said I don't know, but I have no trouble thinking an angry Polian would go there, at least to the point of considering it or throwing it out there as an option before being talked back off the ledge (or calming down on his own). Irsay didn't say Polian went to war to get Peyton traded.

                                I don't think people fully grasp just how full of himself Polian really was/is. The man could care less about public opinion. I think there were times he went against public sentiment not because it was wrong but because he wanted to be the smartest man in the room and do it differently just to do something differently.
                                Last edited by Bball; 03-07-2013, 08:05 PM.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

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

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X