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

With the 24th pick...

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

  • Re: With the 24th pick...

    If my calculations are correct:

    Samson Satele has 2 years left on his contract.

    2013: $2.7 million base + ($1.066 million signing bonus cap hit)
    2014: $3.9 million base + ($1.066 million signing bonus cap hit)

    Cutting him before June 1 will save the Colts about $.6 million against the cap. Cutting him after June 1 will save us $1.6 million this year but cost us $1 million in dead money the following year.

    Mike McGlynn has 1 year left on his contract.

    2013: $1.5 million

    Cutting him saves us $1.5 million against the cap. Doesn't look like we gave him a signing bonus.

    Brandon McKinney has 1 year left on his contract.

    2013: $1 million base + ($150,000 signing bonus cap hit)


    Seems like we can afford to let any or all walk without worrying about dead money issues.

    Comment


    • Re: With the 24th pick...

      Talk about a statement about the state of our LOS on both sides! 4 picks, 4 lineman.

      I'll be okay with it if they all contribute. Hughes seems very high risk, high reward. So I will hope for the latter.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • Re: With the 24th pick...

        Originally posted by Strummer View Post
        If my calculations are correct:

        Samson Satele has 2 years left on his contract.

        2013: $2.7 million base + ($1.066 million signing bonus cap hit)
        2014: $3.9 million base + ($1.066 million signing bonus cap hit)

        Cutting him before June 1 will save the Colts about $.6 million against the cap. Cutting him after June 1 will save us $1.6 million this year but cost us $1 million in dead money the following year.

        Mike McGlynn has 1 year left on his contract.

        2013: $1.5 million

        Cutting him saves us $1.5 million against the cap. Doesn't look like we gave him a signing bonus.

        Brandon McKinney has 1 year left on his contract.

        2013: $1 million base + ($150,000 signing bonus cap hit)


        Seems like we can afford to let any or all walk without worrying about dead money issues.
        Additionally, in terms of the McKinney situation (and maybe even the Chapman situation), the Hughes deal may indicate a level of uncertainly there. Neither guy played last year and both dealt with serious knee injuries. I suppose Satele wasn't exactly the picture of durability himself.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • Re: With the 24th pick...

          So the Colts trade for an early pick in the 5th round to take Montori Hughes.


          OLB - Bjoren Werner
          G - Hugh Thornton
          C/G - Khaled Holmes
          DT - Montori Hughes

          I will admit none of these picks have excited me that much but I am not too disappointed either. Right now I have more of a wait and see mindset.

          I think the Colts are going with Pagano's moto of "iron sharpens iron like man sharpens man" over need and even best player available outside of picking Werner.

          I think Thornton could very well start at guard from day one. He is likely to be the second best guard on this team behind Donald Thomas. Not sure where Holmes fits unless Samson is cut and even then Holmes seems to be a pick to provide depth/competition more so than a true upgrade in talent.

          I think the Hughes picks falls in line with wanting lots of competition across positions. The NT position is certainly a question mark since we don't know how Chapman will come back. Hughes seems to have the talent to be a solid pro but there are questions if he has his head screwed on straight. Lets hope he comes to Indy ready to work and does the right things.

          The Colts didn't come into this draft with one glaring need over another so Grigson and co. had the luxury of approaching this draft in whatever way they wished. In the long term I am worried about depth at WR but I think that was a position that would have had to be addressed early on. The lack of depth at safety is still a concern and I hope they can manage to add a worthy player there before this draft is over. I do like adding depth to both lines as that is where the dirty work is done and there are some question marks there for this team. I just hope the players the Colts drafted for those spots can do right off the field and turn out to be productive on it.

          Comment


          • Re: With the 24th pick...

            Well, last year's draft was heavily let's give Luck some offensive tools to work with. Now it's like let's get Pagano some guys in the trenches to provide a foundation for what he likely wants to establish.

            Assuming the O-line pans out and improves, it will be interested to watch Ballard, and even Brown to a degree, run behind it.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • Re: With the 24th pick...

              6th round - John Boyett, Oregon Free Safety

              Coming off surgery on both knees.

              Ran a 4.57 40 at his pro day.

              Undersized, supposed to be a leader.

              Tops in the bench press for free safeties. 27 reps. Next best was 21.
              Last edited by Strummer; 04-27-2013, 05:01 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: With the 24th pick...

                wow I know they're highlight tapes and it'll be interesting to see how he turns out after the surgery but man watching some of his highlight videos, he really laid out some nasty hits.

                Comment


                • Re: With the 24th pick...

                  Love the Boyett pick my fav pick of the draft would have gone higher if he didnt get injured all year.
                  Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                  Comment


                  • Re: With the 24th pick...

                    Pagano on ESPN now. He looks really good considering what he's been through. I'm thrilled that his recovery is going well.

                    Comment


                    • Re: With the 24th pick...

                      OK, without knowing how the players will fare can I say that I'm glad we addressed the OLine with 3 picks? There is no way Grigs couldn't see that during the past season. Really hope the players will help us there so Luck won't fall on his back that much like last season (I'm looking at you McGlynn!!!!! ).

                      Also good to see we added depth at Safety.

                      Am also worried that we didn't draft a WR. I'm not talking about a definite starter but maybe a raw talented one that will be groomed to be a starter and go to guy in the future. Right now we have 4 of course (make it 5 with Whalen but you know....). If they go into the season with that current bunch maybe it's a sign (apart from the fact that the FO and coaches are just happy with the depth) that we will fully plan to use our 2 TEs, so that leaves us with 2 WRs on the field.
                      Never forget

                      Comment


                      • Re: With the 24th pick...

                        Seems we got a WR. Lanear Sampson

                        https://twitter.com/ShanePHallam/sta...97101677191169
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • Re: With the 24th pick...

                          Overall a really solid draft.

                          Bjoern Werner DE: A+ I love this dude as I've already said enough. Addresses a huge need and should make an immediate impact.

                          Hugh Thornton OG: A- After watching this video of this guy I have to say that I'm really impressed and I think that he will really help solidify our interior. I love how this guy just relentlessly goes after his guy and consistently hustles to block at the next level once he destroys his first guy. He has an "I will destroy you" mentality. He never gives up on a play and at least in that video, he completely and utterly dominated. It shows a lot of character to play with that level of intensity with no let up for 4 quarters despite getting blown out. FYI, he is the left tackle(#72) in that video.

                          Khaled Holmes C: C - This pick is a tad perplexing. We had a chance to get Quinton Patton whom I believe would have had a reasonable chance at being groomed into an eventual Wayne replacement. Instead we go for a center. He certainly has a chance to take over the starting center gig in a year or 2, but I don't think this is our Jeff Saturday. I could be dead wrong, but I think he will end up being a slight upgrade over Satelle and Shipley. It's clear to me that for some reason they don't think Shipley can start despite him being awesome in that Houston game. Our center situation has been a weird one and this only adds to the oddity of the whole thing.

                          Montori Hughes DT: B- This is a boom or bust type of pick. He could end up being an absolute monster given that he is a superb natural athlete in a giant's body. At 6'4 329 Hughes will add even more competition to the NT position and may be groomed to take over for Redding at some point. Chuck sees him as a similar athlete to Ngata which is a good thing. Will be interesting to see if he gets any time at DE at some point like Ngata. It's not a bad pick per se, but it did cost us a 4th rounder next year which is arguable where Hughes should have been taken anyways. So I guess I view it as a wash.

                          John Boyett S: B+ Good pick in the 6th round. Adds some nice depth at safety which is good given Landry's history. Boyett is an excellent player that fell due to injury issues otherwise he would've gone much higher. Great value pick.

                          Kerwynn Williams RB: A- I was really hoping that we would get a scat back this year in the mold of Darren Sproles to come in on 3rd down pass situations. I had my eye on Franklin, but he went a little too early, Williams is an excellent pick. How many times do you get a guy that is actually useful in the 7th round? This guy is quick and can catch in the backfield. Excellent replacement for Donald Brown who is great and all, but can't quite figure out how to catch the ball. If we can teach Williams how to block a bit better, I think he will get some usage and turn some heads.
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1p12_k9Etw

                          Comment


                          • Re: With the 24th pick...

                            The Colts undrafted free agent list.
                            from http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2013-...ed-free-agents

                            Indianapolis Colts
                            Lanear Simpson, WR, Baylor
                            Dan Moore, FB, Montana
                            Brandon McManus, K, Temple
                            Daxton Swanson, CB, SJ State
                            Emmett Cleary, OL, Boston College
                            Nigel Malone, CB, Kansas State
                            Denodus O’Bryant, RB, Lindenwood
                            Sheldon Price, CB, UCLA
                            Rodrick Rumble, WR, Idaho State
                            Nick Driskill, S, Mount Union (Tryout)

                            Comment


                            • Re: With the 24th pick...

                              Don't really get why not take a flier on Chase Thomas and Da-Rick Rodgers in the 7th round. Those other 2 guys could have been brought in on UFA.

                              Sheldon Price was a nice pickup though.

                              Would have liked Ray Ray and Rodney Smith. Smith is 6'4" WR with 4.5 speed. Pretty fast for a tall receiver.

                              The Holmes pick was a bit of a head scratcher. And no, I didn't want Patton. Patton drops a lot of passes. We already have speedy WR that are drop prone with TY and Brazil. Franklin (RB) would have been a better pickup, as would William Gohlston (compared to Redding) and Rambo.

                              Overall, I'm not really displeased. Grigson had a hell of a draft last year, so I'll give it some time before being overly judgmental and jumping to conclusions. Definitely liked the first 2 picks.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment


                              • Re: With the 24th pick...

                                did Rodgers have any off field problems other than drug tests? if not I frankly don't care, shoulda drafted him. glad I never had to pass random drug tests in college.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X