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

The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

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

  • #61
    Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

    Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
    And now a TE, which I don't think we really need but I didn't think we needed Dallas Clark either.
    Originally posted by DGPR View Post
    I'm scratching my head at the TE pick but I'm not running the Colts, Polian is.
    Actually, out of all the picks I am intrigued by Brody Eldridge the most. Mayock said that he was the best blocking TE in the draft, and that he played center and guard at times for the Sooners.

    This guy sooner or later will be in on goalline and short yardage packages as a TE/FB.
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

      Ray Fisher.

      Excellent use of a 7th round pick.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

        Good pick in Ray Fisher from IU. Even though he's a CB I'm guessing they also like his kick return ability since they colts were lacking that.
        Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

          I am pretty bummed the Pats snagged Spikes. There is no way I could ever cheer for that POS.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

            Originally posted by Moses View Post
            I am pretty bummed the Pats snagged Spikes. There is no way I could ever cheer for that POS.

            I'm sure Spikes isn't the first guy to eye gouge at the bottom of a pile, he just got caught on camera doing it.

            "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

              Undrafted players so far...

              Tim Hiller, QB Western Michigan
              Blair White, WR Michigan State

              http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09...s&confirm=true
              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                Natston-

                Eldridge is indeed a beast at 'the point of attack.

                I'm a HUGE OU football fan and have seen every game in recent
                years. He played some C and G as a fill-in for injured guys last
                year (they went through 4 C's last year), but he's a TE all the
                way.

                He does a tremednous job 'setting the edge' in the run game.
                Remember the days of Edge James running the 'stretch' play
                so well with the TE combo of Ken Dilger and Marcus Pollard ?
                I can easily see that again in the future with Eldridge in the
                role of Dilger as the second, in-line, blocking TE (Brody isn't
                a terrible receiving TE, but needless to say, when coupled with
                Gresham as he was the previous couple years, you aren't gonna
                see many, if any balls heading your way).

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                  somebody should have drafted Freddy Barnes. 155 catches and 19 TDs in a college season is unreal. 299 yards in a bowl game.

                  what do you call a 10-catch game for Freddie? An off day.

                  UDFA signed by the Bears... ought to make their team, IMO; 6'0" with long arms and great hands, but 4.67 in the forty. Stopwatches only tell you so much.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                    Originally posted by Natston View Post
                    Undrafted players so far...

                    Tim Hiller, QB Western Michigan
                    Blair White, WR Michigan State

                    http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09...s&confirm=true

                    Here's a update. Not a bad group really.

                    http://www.stampedeblue.com/2010/4/2...ents?ref=yahoo

                    * Brandon James, KR, Florida
                    * Blair White, WR, Michigan State
                    * Tim Hiller, QB, WMU
                    * Mike Newton, S, UB
                    * Jeff Linkenbach, LT, Cincinnati
                    * Javarris James, RB, Miami
                    * Thad Turner CB, Ohio
                    * Brett Swenson, K, Michigan St.
                    * David Caldwell, S, William & Mary
                    * Brandon King, CB, Purdue (rumored, still verifying)
                    * Vuna Tuihalamaka, LB, Arizona

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                      Originally posted by Moses View Post
                      I am pretty bummed the Pats snagged Spikes. There is no way I could ever cheer for that POS.


                      I'm sure Wilfork taught Spikes all the eye poking tricks he could possibly learn

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                        Here's a update. Not a bad group really.

                        http://www.stampedeblue.com/2010/4/2...ents?ref=yahoo
                        Grabbing Brett Swenson, Michigan State's kicker, was a GREAT signing. I thought the Colts were going to draft him with one of the seventh rounds picks, but they ended up with him anyway. He was the consensus best kicker in the draft and considered by most to be the best kicker in college football last year. He should be a huge upgrade over 37 year old Vinatieri and/or 42 year old Stover.

                        4th round pick Jacques McClendon seems like a great guy and huge Peyton fan.

                        "McClendon, who started 26 games at right guard at Tennessee, was an All-Academic Southeastern Conference selection, and grew up in Cleveland, Tenn. As such, he said he grew up a fan of the University of Tennessee – and of their quarterback from 1994-97.

                        That was quarterback Peyton Manning.

                        β€œHe comes around the facility all the time,” he said. β€œI still have the Peyton Manning jersey. I have the autographed helmet in my mother's house. I'm a huge Peyton Manning fan. To be able to go to an organization with a quarterback like that is an unbelievable blessing."

                        http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=ar...3-5a24b1b5978c

                        All in all this was a very solid draft for adding depth to the team.

                        - Stud pass-rusher to compliment Freeney/Mathis (Hughes)
                        - Gary Brackett's future replacement/compliment/all-around solid LB (Angerer)
                        - Solid cover corner to add depth behind Hayden/Powers/Lacey (Thomas)
                        - A RG that fits the Colts mold (McClendon)
                        - A blocking TE that can move inside the line if necessary (Elridge)
                        - 7th round picks that add depth at LB and DT (Conner and Matthews)
                        - Two big special teams additions, Fisher at kick returner and Swenson at kicker.
                        - Finally, a WR who many called the best undrafted WR, Blair White. He's a smart player and hard worker, standard Colt acquisition.

                        I'm very excited to see what this team is going to be able to do next year. Let's not forget that our former defensive player of the year should be returning, if he can manage to stay healthy. I know that's a big if for Bobby, but few can argue that Sanders turns the D up at notch when he's at the top of his game. Hopefully being able to rotate a trio of Sanders, Bethea, and Bullitt at the safety position should help keep them all healthy.

                        I'm feeling great going into the season. Signing Faneca to a 2-3 year deal would be the icing on the cake. I think the fact that Polian didn't go after an O-lineman in the draft means he feels fairly comfortable with Charlie Johnson playing another year at LT. Putting Faneca next to him at LG would add a lot of security to the o-line charged with the task of protecting the league's best player.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                          Faneca to the Colts isn't happening. You only need him if you plan on giving your RB's 500+ carries and I bet the Colts don't even come within 150 of that.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                            Maybe we don't "need" him, but LG is a weakness on the o-line and we're one of the worst rushing teams in the league. I know part of the reason that's so is because we pass so much, but Addai and Brown's yards per carry numbers could be better. Faneca was upset that the Jets cut him and likely wants to finish his career with a super bowl contender. What better revenge than signing with the team that beat the Jets in the AFC championship? I know it's not likely, especially since the Colts never sign big name free agents, but it makes a bit of sense for both parties.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                              Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                              I'm sure Spikes isn't the first guy to eye gouge at the bottom of a pile.
                              The Georgia player (Ealey) even today laughs off that incident. Ealey in interviews said that Spikes did not try and gouge his eyes. He was wiping Ealey's own spit into his face, even saying "here's your spit back" as he did it. Ealey admits that he had spit on Spikes the play before and Spikes was getting even.

                              I am not condoning what happened, just filling out the rest of the story.

                              Brandon Spikes is a high energy instense football player. In that instance he "lost it". I have heard people compare him to Brian Cox, a similarly intense LB from 10 or so years ago.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: The 2010 NFL Draft Thread

                                Originally posted by CooperManning View Post

                                I'm feeling great going into the season. Signing Faneca to a 2-3 year deal would be the icing on the cake. I think the fact that Polian didn't go after an O-lineman in the draft means he feels fairly comfortable with Charlie Johnson playing another year at LT. Putting Faneca next to him at LG would add a lot of security to the o-line charged with the task of protecting the league's best player.
                                I agree that Polian must feel comfortable with the OT position considering he had a shot at the USC kid but he did address the guard position with the 4th round pick McClendon (tenn). Dude set the all time bench record at Tenn with 645 lbs.

                                IMO, Faneca is too costly for the Colts who have always stayed away from expensive FA signings.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X