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

NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

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

  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

    Not true at all. You get the #1 draft pick and trade it. You turn it into whatever teams first round pick along with their second, you also take their first round pick next year along with a fourth or whatever.

    You've retained your FA and you've just added 5 first/second round talent to your roster in 2 years. I gave a pretty far out scenario of how to land barkley next draft in the who would you take thread.

    With Peyton and the other guys back it gives the Colts three drafts to get 7 first-second round talent. Surely they feel like they could draft well enough to restock while winning. It fits their personality of supreme confidence and/or arrogance, which ever you prefer.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

      [QUOTE=Since86;1333211]Not true at all. You get the #1 draft pick and trade it. You turn it into whatever teams first round pick along with their second, you also take their first round pick next year along with a fourth or whatever.

      You've retained your FA and you've just added 5 first/second round talent to your roster in 2 years. I gave a pretty far out scenario of how to land barkley next draft in the who would you take thread.

      With Peyton and the other guys back it gives the Colts three drafts to get 7 first-second round talent. Surely they feel like they could draft well enough to restock while winning. It fits their personality of supreme confidence and/or arrogance, which ever you prefer.[/QUOTE

      Too many assumptions. Luck brings just 3 decent picks (because you traded Luck and got 2 1st and a second and a fourth) and that isn't much if Luck turns out to be the same quality as PM. Take PMs and a few other costly salary Millions and and buy proven FAs. We still will have good picks in the later rounds after Luck and won't have to put off getting the QB of the future.

      If someone told you 12 years ago you could have the next Marino, Elway, Montana, etc. You pass it up so you can get a possible Hughes, Gonzales, or Brown? No way. Guys like this don't come along often enough to pass this up. Luck may not be the next Peyton but neither are we guaranteed your 2 firsts and a second will amount to much.

      Comment


      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

        I've repeatedly established that the #1 pick brings in more than 3just picks. I've given quotes from FO executives who've said it and I've given recent historical examples.

        Its not an assumption, its a fact. Trading this #1 pick will get you atleast 3 very high picks along with some fourth or fifth round fillers.

        The only assumption is then being able to flip them to get into position for barkley.

        The odds that Luck is gonna be on Marino Elway or Montana is pretty low. Its less than 50/50. I can't believe you'd say im working off too many assumptions when you've already penned luck one of the greatest qbs already. That's crazy expectations. For every manning there is a Ryan leaf.
        Last edited by Since86; 12-31-2011, 09:49 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I've repeatedly established that the #1 pick brings in more than 3just picks. I've given quotes from FO executives who've said it and I've given recent historical examples.

          Its not an assumption, its a fact. Trading this #1 pick will get you atleast 3 very high picks along with some fourth or fifth round fillers.

          The only assumption is then being able to flip them to get into position for barkley.

          The odds that Luck is gonna be on Marino Elway or Montana is pretty low. Its less than 50/50. I can't believe you'd say im working off too many assumptions when you've already penned luck one of the greatest qbs already. That's crazy expectations. For every manning there is a Ryan leaf.
          Barkley is going back to USC. RGIII to the max!

          Comment


          • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

            OK - how bad do the Colts want me ?? Today is their chance to let the world know.

            Comment


            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I've repeatedly established that the #1 pick brings in more than 3just picks. I've given quotes from FO executives who've said it and I've given recent historical examples.

              Its not an assumption, its a fact. Trading this #1 pick will get you atleast 3 very high picks along with some fourth or fifth round fillers.

              The only assumption is then being able to flip them to get into position for barkley.

              The odds that Luck is gonna be on Marino Elway or Montana is pretty low. Its less than 50/50. I can't believe you'd say im working off too many assumptions when you've already penned luck one of the greatest qbs already. That's crazy expectations. For every manning there is a Ryan leaf.
              Yes, the Luck pick could net us quite a bit. And getting all those high picks is better than the number 2 pick IMO because it's always possible that the number 2 pick could be a bust. But we'd almost be guaranteed some solid players if we had multiple picks to chose from.

              That's why I said the other day that Manning's health is irrelevant as to whether you want that number 1 pick. You want that pick no matter what because it gives you the most options going forward. It covers all the bases.

              Comment


              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I've repeatedly established that the #1 pick brings in more than 3just picks. I've given quotes from FO executives who've said it and I've given recent historical examples.

                Its not an assumption, its a fact. Trading this #1 pick will get you atleast 3 very high picks along with some fourth or fifth round fillers.

                The only assumption is then being able to flip them to get into position for barkley.

                The odds that Luck is gonna be on Marino Elway or Montana is pretty low. Its less than 50/50. I can't believe you'd say im working off too many assumptions when you've already penned luck one of the greatest qbs already. That's crazy expectations. For every manning there is a Ryan leaf.
                We have a better chance of getting to the super Bowl with Luck than with your at least 3 very high picks. We are talking about guys named Manning (plural) Elway, Aikman, Young, etc top picks who led their teams to super bowls. Your odds that Luck is not in an elite category is base on what? You can't have it both ways saying he is not elite but can get us at least 3 very high picks and some 4,5 fillers.

                Comment


                • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                  No actually you don't. Peyton and eli are the only recent #1 qbs to have gotten to the sb. Peyton is considered one of, if not the greatest qb ever to play and he only has one ring while Trent dilfer has one, tom brady has three, and big ben has two. How many did marino win? How many os alex Smith gonna win? How many is jamrcus Russell gonna win?

                  Bob kravtiz replied to an Irsay tweet asking how many #1 picks have won a sb. Bob count 18 since 1970, so 18 out of 40. And that's all players and not just qb. Its a crap shoot.

                  If they draft the next Peyton and ignore the other problems on the team, then why would you expect the andrew luck era be any different than the Peyton manning era? He has to turn into one of the greatest ever just to get one, and that's even up in the air. Doesn't happen without a dpoy too.

                  Do ot right this time and build a TEAM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Bob kravtiz replied to an Irsay tweet asking how many #1 picks have won a sb. Bob count 18 since 1970, so 18 out of 40. And that's all players and not just qb. Its a crap shoot.
                    That's almost half the Super Bowls since 1970. Uhhh, I'll take that percentage any day. How many times has a QB drafted #2 overall won an SB since 1970? #3? #4? A QB at #1 is far from a sure thing, but this particular QB is said to be a surer thing, and I like my chances rolling with him. And just because they pick Luck #1 overall doesn't mean they will "ignore" their other problems. They know they are getting older and have problems all across the football field. Now they also have the top pick in the second round, which is where our first round pick usually hovers.

                    Comment


                    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      No actually you don't. Peyton and eli are the only recent #1 qbs to have gotten to the sb. Peyton is considered one of, if not the greatest qb ever to play and he only has one ring while Trent dilfer has one, tom brady has three, and big ben has two. How many did marino win? How many os alex Smith gonna win? How many is jamrcus Russell gonna win?

                      Bob kravtiz replied to an Irsay tweet asking how many #1 picks have won a sb. Bob count 18 since 1970, so 18 out of 40. And that's all players and not just qb. Its a crap shoot.

                      If they draft the next Peyton and ignore the other problems on the team, then why would you expect the andrew luck era be any different than the Peyton manning era? He has to turn into one of the greatest ever just to get one, and that's even up in the air. Doesn't happen without a dpoy too.

                      Do ot right this time and build a TEAM.
                      You mean Aikman and Bledsoe are ancient? Why the cutoff at the Mannings? That's arbitrary. You want to trade Luck for at the most 2 first rounders and a couple of others? Would you have traded PM for that in his prime? Of course not. We'll still rebuild because we will have high lower round picks and It's going to take a couple of years to rebuild. The way you do it is to get your future QB first and not last. That's how you build your TEAM and that's the way the present Colts were built. Manning preceded every offensive player other than Marvin. manning wasn't the missing piece, he was the first piece.

                      P.S. see post #144
                      Last edited by speakout4; 01-01-2012, 05:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                        I'm torn because I'd love to pick up a lockdown cornerback and a great left tackle.

                        But to pass up a promising QB.........I just don't know. Wish I'd seen more of Luck than I did. I do keep thinking of how injured our defense was this year and thinking it has to be better next just because people will be back, I hope. But if we could keep Mathis and Freeny and add a topflight corner...dayum.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                          Draft Luck if you wish, but it would honestly be very sad for me to see Peyton in another uniform. Honestly, reading this part of the board over the past week has made me ill. Can you imagine Broncos fans being excited to see Elway pushed out? Bulls fans excited to see Jordan replaced? Yes yes, Montana played for the Chiefs, point stands. The way some here have been so eager to shove the greatest sports figure ever to play for Indianapolis, or for any Indiana team, out the door makes me sick.

                          Had to get that off my chest. If they pick Luck, I hope he does well, and I'll be excited at the prospect of such a highly touted young QB. But hope I haven't seen Manning under center for the last time as a Colt.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                            Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                            Draft Luck if you wish, but it would honestly be very sad for me to see Peyton in another uniform. Honestly, reading this part of the board over the past week has made me ill. Can you imagine Broncos fans being excited to see Elway pushed out? Bulls fans excited to see Jordan replaced? Yes yes, Montana played for the Chiefs, point stands. The way some here have been so eager to shove the greatest sports figure ever to play for Indianapolis, or for any Indiana team, out the door makes me sick.

                            Had to get that off my chest. If they pick Luck, I hope he does well, and I'll be excited at the prospect of such a highly touted young QB. But hope I haven't seen Manning under center for the last time as a Colt.
                            I don't think a single person on this board is excited to see Manning gone. Not one. We are excited that we have the incredible asset that is the #1 pick in this draft. We are excited that we have a seemless transition from one franchise quarterback to another. I've said this before: I love Manning. He made football relevant in the state of Indiana, period. He saved the Colts from probably being shipped off to LA by now. He is a model citizen and the biggest star the city has ever (and maybe will ever) had. You can't measure what he has done for this franchise, and I personally think he is the greatest quarterback of all time. The day he leaves will be incredibly emotional, but sometimes you have to do what's best for the long term health of the franchise. It's a tough decision, but it's part of the game.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                              Originally posted by Andrew_Luck View Post
                              OK - how bad do the Colts want me ?? Today is their chance to let the world know.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                I don't think a single person on this board is excited to see Manning gone. Not one. We are excited that we have the incredible asset that is the #1 pick in this draft. We are excited that we have a seemless transition from one franchise quarterback to another. I've said this before: I love Manning. He made football relevant in the state of Indiana, period. He saved the Colts from probably being shipped off to LA by now. He is a model citizen and the biggest star the city has ever (and maybe will ever) had. You can't measure what he has done for this franchise, and I personally think he is the greatest quarterback of all time. The day he leaves will be incredibly emotional, but sometimes you have to do what's best for the long term health of the franchise. It's a tough decision, but it's part of the game.
                                Well, I hope no one takes it personally, but the utter glee at losing and Jags avatars, etc, about had me ready to quit the board. And I do feel, not necessarily this board but in general, that Colts fans don't completely appreciate what Manning has done, either because they don't really remember the time before he started or because he's not a Basketball player. Really, I'm not in the habit of gushing over some sports figure at all, but I felt like I had to post it. Again, not going the route of questioning people's 'fanhood' but it's a personal feeling. I'm excited to get Luck if it means avoiding another decade of Jeff George Jack Trudeau QB controversy but if Manning has played his last down as a Colt, it'd feel like he never got the right send off (like Reggie did) and that'd be a bit tragic, at least as sports stories can be called 'tragic.'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X