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

Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

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

  • Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

    look no further than the Cassius Vaughn trade, yea he is not a stud player, but we got him for Chris Gronkowski (yea most of you have no idea who this is). Not to mention the great draft picks, Jerrell Freeman signing, and the Donnie Avery signing, He has been a great pick up this off-season

  • #2
    Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

    I honestly don't see how it could be anyone else. I mean seriously. The Colts are currently playing with 35 players that weren't on the 53 man roster that went 2-14 last year. Seriously? That's turning over 66% of their roster! Crazy!

    Look at that draft.

    Outside of Luck, Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Ballard, and Brazil have all contributed.

    Bringing Redding over with Pagano from Baltimore was also a move that worked out better than anyone thought. Vaughn, Butler and Vontae have all had their moments too.

    Two of the late round picks are on the practice squad and another was picked up by Arizona after release.

    What other GM had an offseason better than that? How could they?
    Last edited by travmil; 12-10-2012, 12:55 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

      Originally posted by travmil View Post

      What other GM had an offseason better than that? Now could they?
      I bet Elway gets it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I bet Elway gets it.
        For what? The Broncos won a playoff game last year. Are the Broncos better? Yeah. Are they 7+ games better? No.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          For what? The Broncos won a playoff game last year. Are the Broncos better? Yeah. Are they 7+ games better? No.
          I agree that Grigs should probably get it. I'm just saying that you cannot underestimate effect that Manning will have on voting.

          Sure the Broncos won a playoff game last year against a Steelers team that is clearly not what it used to be. Sometimes a crappy division winner can catch lightning in a bottle at home against a better opponent, a la Seahawks beating Saints two years ago. But no one took that Denver team seriously to go the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl. They got absolutely massacred by New England the next week. Now they are a legitimate Super Bowl threat. Didn't Elway also improve the defense?

          Grigs should be at the top of any list with the moves he's made. But at the same time, I don't think that last year's team was a 2-14 team win per se. It just had 2-14 - caliber quarterbacks with Collins, Painter, and Orvlosky. It's just impossible to win more than a couple of games when you throw scrubs like that out there as starting quarterbacks for an NFL team. I don't care how good the other players are because you're simply not going to win games with Curtis Painter. Upgrading the quarterback position immediately met that we would be in contention to win several more games than last year. You put Luck on last year's team while changing nothing else and we are probably .500 (we played a first place schedule).

          But yes, Grigs made excellent moves across the board and deserves credit.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-10-2012, 09:53 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

            You certainly have a point about Elway and i know you say Grigson should get it but here is my take: At the end of the day he got Peyton freaking Manning.One of the best QBs the NFL has ever seen.Grigson's case is slightly different.Yes he got the No 1 draft pick in Luck but that doesn't necessarily mean success.Still remains a rookie.Plus most of the other draft picks have been close to phenomenal success and have contributed vastly to our record so far.Just for the draft picks,it should go to Grigs and i think he'll get it just like Larry did last year.
            Never forget

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

              BTW, can anyone tell me what pieces we got back from Denver by trading Peyton to them?Made a search but didn't find anything
              Never forget

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                BTW, can anyone tell me what pieces we got back from Denver by trading Peyton to them?Made a search but didn't find anything

                We didn't trade Peyton. We flat out cut him, which made him a free agent. He was free to sign with whatever team he wanted on whatever terms he wanted.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  I honestly don't see how it could be anyone else. I mean seriously. The Colts are currently playing with 35 players that weren't on the 53 man roster that went 2-14 last year. Seriously? That's turning over 66% of their roster! Crazy!

                  Look at that draft.

                  Outside of Luck, Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Ballard, and Brazil have all contributed.

                  Bringing Redding over with Pagano from Baltimore was also a move that worked out better than anyone thought. Vaughn, Butler and Vontae have all had their moments too.

                  Two of the late round picks are on the practice squad and another was picked up by Arizona after release.

                  What other GM had an offseason better than that? How could they?
                  Funny, I just read an article stating the Colts only needed a decent QB because before the 2-14 team the Colts were stacked.

                  Not arguing either way, just funny

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                    I believe he will win the award. He's done an incredible job with what he has done
                    Smothered Chicken!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                      Looks like Grigs did get it. There's no AP award for executive of the year, which I did not know, so The Sporting News award is considered the official award and is voted on by the NFL coaches and executives.

                      http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...r-grigson-hire

                      Monday, January 28, 2013
                      Irsay deserves applause for Grigson hire
                      By Paul Kuharsky

                      When Jim Irsay ousted Bill Polian and decided to start with a fresh face leading the front office as well as the offensive huddle, he took a serious risk.

                      Brusque as Polian was and despite missing on many of his player choices late in his term, he was a proven, high-caliber personnel chief and team architect.


                      Grigson
                      But in Ryan Grigson, Irsay appears to have hit a home run.

                      For his first year of player acquisitions, Grigson is the NFL executive of the year for The Sporting News. The Associated Press awards -- that are regarded as the league’s official awards and will be unveiled Saturday night -- don’t include an executive of the year category. This award is regarded as the official one.

                      Grigson's first draft choice was hardly a difficult one with Andrew Luck. But he did well to also draft tight end Dwayne Allen, receiver T.Y. Hilton, running back Vick Ballard and receiver LaVon Brazill.

                      While the team jettisoned a slew of veterans, two he re-signed -- receiver Reggie Wayne and outside linebacker Robert Mathis -- had big years.

                      While swallowing more than $30 million in dead cap money, Grigson found a very solid inside linebacker from the CFL in Jerrell Freeman, boldly traded a second-round pick to Miami for cornerback Vontae Davis and found guys along the way like cornerback Darius Butler and returner Deji Karim who made significant contributions to an 11-5 team that improbably made the playoffs.

                      I think Grigson is a worthy winner.

                      John Schneider of the Seahawks had what probably qualified as an even better year. Schneider narrowly won an ESPN ballot I put together after the season ended.

                      Only coaches and executives voted for executive of the year for The Sporting News.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                        Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                        BTW, can anyone tell me what pieces we got back from Denver by trading Peyton to them?Made a search but didn't find anything
                        We had to cut him or give him another $20 million bonus without knowing whether he'd ever play again.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                          Not only does Grigson deserve it but I'd argue that Manning would arguably have hurt Elway as much or more than he helped from a PR standpoint. Now if Elway had done some monster trade to get Manning that would've been one thing.... but all he did was open the vault for a FA and made an already good team better. Denver lacked a QB of significance and by signing Manning he got one. But he signed Peyton Manning... It's not like he signed some CFL backup and and found the pieces that turned him into a star QB.

                          Now, if Manning would've gotten them to the AFC Championship game or the SB then maybe things look different. But he didn't.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            But he signed Peyton Manning...
                            I think it was more of Manning choosing Denver than anything else. Elway did nothing more than say thanks.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ryan Grigson making NFL executive of the year statement

                              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                              I think it was more of Manning choosing Denver than anything else. Elway did nothing more than say thanks.
                              Yes but its not as if they were the only team after him: Tennessee and SF were the other choices..

                              Although I never thought he'd seriously consider Tennessee especially since Bud Adams is the owner.... his dad played for them and well it didn't end great either.

                              Elway did have to convince him to sign there. Regardless I'm glad Grigson won it sure we drafted Andrew Luck but its the other acquisitions that have paid off TY Hilton, Vick Ballard to name a few.


                              If not him I'd have gone for that Seattle dude who drafted Russell Wilson.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X