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

Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

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

  • #16
    Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

    I don't think the Colts will really take Decker I could see them going for Maclin though given Grigson's Eagles ties.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
      I don't think the Colts will really take Decker I could see them going for Maclin though given Grigson's Eagles ties.
      I'd like a guy like Doug Baldwin but pretty sure he's going to be restricted so it'd cost a pick

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        I'd like a guy like Doug Baldwin but pretty sure he's going to be restricted so it'd cost a pick
        What's wrong with Golden Tate?
        Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

          When weighed against all the needs this team has, WR is extremely far down the list. In fact I would say it is second to last, only to QB. Hilton, Brazill, and Whalen are going into their third season, traditionally the breakout season for WRs. Hilton has already shown the potential to be a Pro-Bowl caliber WR, and he is in the top 3 in 100 yard games through the first two seasons of a WRs career. He might not be Harrison or Wayne good, but I certainly expect him to be better than Decker. Brazill isn't as proven, but from what I saw he looks like a WR who should have a solid career as a number 2. Whalen seems to be a solid slot receiver also. Then hopefully Wayne comes back, and is able to at least be a good possession receiver. To me that is a pretty solid group, that has the potentially to be one of the best in the league. That is even before you get to the potential that Rogers has, but he is the least proven of all of them. The only one I would even consider spending a little money to replace is Whalen.

          Spend that money on OL, DL, and MLB not WR.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

            I don't want to foolishly break the bank on this guy, but I'd love to add him if the market makes him come down to reality a bit with his demands. I'm not near as sold on our receiving unit as some of you. Hilton is a stud, no doubt about that, but defenses were able to successfully take him out for multiple games last year after Reggie went down. It wasn't until the end of the year that he really got it together consistently. Fleener was very solid last year and Allen should return next year to form a nasty 2TE duo, so I have no complaints there. Brazil and Rodgers showed flashes, but I'm still cautious with them. Wayne is a legend and will always be my favorite, but he will turn 36 during the season and is coming off of the ACL injury. Even if he comes back for a solid season, there is no question that he is in the twilight of his career and we have to prepare for the future without him.

            Decker is very solid and I think way too many people write him off just because he balls with Peyt. The guy managed 8 touchdowns with that Orton/Tebow duo in 2011. He is an endzone hawk. I just don't want to watch another season where we go through a dry spell because we are thin in the playmaking positions. Again, I understand that this team has multiple needs, which is why I wouldn't foolishly blow the bank on Deck, but if the price is reasonable it would be a nice upgrade.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

              Lots of players put a high number as far as their asking range for salary eventually they do come down to Earth but he's not going to lowball himself either.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  Lots of players put a high number as far as their asking range for salary eventually they do come down to Earth but he's not going to lowball himself either.
                  I agree, he's not going to lowball himself, but I think that the market will definitely force him down a bit. I just think that way too many people write him off because of Manning, which hardly makes him the first Manning WR to be underrated. This guy had 8 touchdowns the year before Manning. I watched almost every Denver game last year and he is a very solid receiver who will continue to put up solid stats for a while regardless of who he is with. Decker and Hilton would be a great duo for Luck to grow up with. Add that to the 2 TE's, hope that one of Rodgers/Brazil works out, and you have a great foundation (until you have to start paying Luck and some of these guys.)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                    I do wonder if the Colts are really looking for a WR as a top priority though I mean they should've thought of a replacement for Reggie a couple years ago but we get lulled into a false sense of security here when he never missed a game up until this point(gee this sounds really familiar....)

                    But we have a soon to be 36 year old WR who's coming of a torn ACL and meniscus. He is not going to be the same player he once was. I hope that it doesn't mean we've seen the last of Wayne. Marvin had a similar injury against the Broncos at home and that pretty much was the end for him sure he played after that but he wasn't the same.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post


                      Excellent!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        Lots of players put a high number as far as their asking range for salary eventually they do come down to Earth but he's not going to lowball himself either.
                        I also worry because Grigson showed last year he's capable of overpaying players
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                          I say get a young guy with potential Decker is not bad, but if you get him you are stuck with a guy who is not a #1 for a long time because the contract you will have to give him. He is a really good player but somewhere in between a #1 and #2.

                          Also just throwing this out there, pretty sure most will sign long term contracts but man the 2015 class of unrestricted free agents is packed Marshall, White, Welker, AJ Green, Dez, Jordy, Demarius, Torrey, Cobb. I know I would love atleast one of those guys on my team(Excluding Marshall, White Welker, Torrey and Dez, so I guess that only really leaves 4 but that is a dynamic 4)...
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                            It's nice to see the Colts are still pursuing skill position players they don't need instead of improving actual weaknesses. I guess all that talk about "building the monster" was typical rah-rah coach-speak.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                              Guys, WR is absolutely a weakness going forward. Reggie's 35 and coming off the ACL. The only surefire NFL player moving forward we have at WR is Hilton and he's just too small to be a real #1. I don't want to chase Decker because he'll probably get overpaid (FAs worth a crap almost always do, which is why free agency sucks as a way to build a team), but we 100% need to acquire a Reggie replacement ASAP, it's part of why I hated the TRich trade so much, I'd have had no problem going WR in the 1st this year, still wouldn't mind it in the 2nd. There's a chance Da'Rick's that guy, but I'm not gonna jump to any sorta conclusions off of one good game, definitely need to have him getting a big amount of snaps next year though.

                              OL certainly sucks, but I don't really care that much, get just a league average OL (which we're well below right now) and that's more than good enough to win. Thomas and Thornton get healthy, dump Satele's bum ***, play McGlynn at C or hope Holmes shows something, that's good enough for me. Getting a linebacker not named Freeman worth a damn is priority 1, then safety and WR are 2 depending on the draft/market. A rush end's up there too but hopefully Werner'll be that, gotta at least give him a chance.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Colts express an interest in Eric Decker

                                Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                                I also worry because Grigson showed last year he's capable of overpaying players
                                I disagree with this. If you look at last years signings, all those guys were paid as solid/good starters, those weren't huge deals with a bunch of guaranteed money. None of them got huge deals and just about all of them did exactly what they were expected to do. Landry and Toler got hurt midseason but up until then, our secondary looked very good. Donald Thomas also looked good up until he got hurt. RJF was probably the most disappointing but I would still consider him an upgrade over what we had before. And that's all Grigson was trying to do. We can cut all of those guys right now except Landry and save money, and even cutting Landry would only cost 500k in dead money this year. To me, overpaying usually means throwing a big bonus at a guy who flops, like Mike Wallace in Miami.

                                I viewed most of those signings as stop gaps, not long term solutions. And I felt like his draft picks showed that as well. He drafted Thornton to play behind Thomas, Werner to play behind Walden, and Montori Hughes to play behind RJF. I think those guys were brought in to groom the rookies and be solid contributors, and for the most part they were.

                                I think Grigs liked this years FA crop much better and decided to not invest long term in anybody last year. There is a reason he was so willing to trade this years draft picks, and I expect a few more high profile signings this year.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X