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

2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

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

  • 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

    A thread for tips, questions, suggestions, whining, crying, and complaining about your Fantasy Football team.

    I was stuck picking midpack in our draft and this is who I ended up with. I had Luck last year and got burned. It seemed like when I needed him to have a good points game it didn't happen. When I'd get cold feet and go with a bench QB and their matchup then Luck would be a monster on my bench. But I've chosen him again. I was thinking last year the Colts would utilize a lot of short passes almost as a running game and pepper in some long stuff to keep teams off balance and allow that to open the running game.... But instead it seems they tried to force the running game and Luck didn't get a lot of cheap yards or sustained drives because of it. ...Even though he ultimately got a lot of yards. The consistency for fantasy just didn't seem to be there though. So maybe this year he'll get a little more opportunity... And maybe this year Pep Hamilton will understand my needs better at my FFL QB spot!

    So I have
    Luck
    Lynch
    Arian Foster
    Emmanual Sanders
    Larry Fitzgerald
    Crabtree
    Julius Thomas
    Ravens D
    Justin Tucker

    MJD was drafted to my bench
    I have Amendola and LaFell as bench WR's
    James Starks is on my bench
    DeAngelo Williams is on the bench
    And Cincy QB....
    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, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

    This week's (week 1) matchups look favorable as far as stats go for most of my starters with the exception of Julius Thomas. And I don't think I will buy the stats in that case... And it doesn't look like ESPN did as well with a projected scoring of 11.1 for him.

    Now... the Ravens' D doesn't look like ESPN likes much against Cincy... So we'll see about that. Doubt I get cold feet and search the waiver wires but you never know....
    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, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

      I like that team. Lynch probably has one more year left being a major horse in Seattle. Foster could have a bounceback year. I think Sanders has a nice year ahead of him with Decker gone and Welker's concussion health likely causing him to miss games at some point. Orange Julius will benefit from that too. I think Luck will be a good fantasy QB, but it's probably unfortunately a given that he will frustrate you at some point due to play calling and inconsistencies of the offense. The fact that he can run touchdowns in is a huge boost.

      Here's my team. We use a one player keeper and I kept Peyton. We draft in reverse order of how we finished last year, so I had the 10th pick since i finished in 3rd place. By that point, all of the really good running backs were gone between the keeper round and 9 picks before me. So I loaded up on other positions instead of spending an early pick on a RB that I wasn't excited about. We'll see what happens. 0.5 PPR. We start 1 QB, 3 WR, 2 RB, TE, DEF, K, and one Flex that can be a WR/TE/RB.

      QB- Peyton
      WR - Jordy Nelson, Vincent Jackson, Emmanuel Sanders, Danny Ammendola, Aaron Dobson, Josh Gordon (not dropping until it's 100% certain that he's not going to sue to get an injunction)
      RB - Shane Vereen, Lamar Miller, Steven Jackson, Devonta Freeman (ATL backup), Benny Cunningham (Rams backup)
      TE - Julius Thomas, Tim Wright
      K - Dan Bailey
      D - St. Louis

      Obviously it's weak at RB, but I think I got a huge value with Vereen in the 5th round. I'm usually pretty good at finding players throughout the season on the waiver wire, so I just hope to pickup another decent running back that can put up acceptable numbers. My goal is to overwhelm teams with the Peyton/Julius/Sanders trio, plus Jordy Nelson and Vincent Jackson.

      I have three Patriots on my bench with Wright, Dobson, and Ammendola. Dobson showed some nice flashes last year before getting hurt and made a great TD catch in their last pre-season game on Thursday. I hope that either him or Ammendola has a good season. Wright is that TE they just traded for who looked solid on Tampa in his rookie year.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

        I hope Thomas and Sanders have terrible games week 1.

        Edit: Sollozzo I hope your qb has a bad week 1 too
        Last edited by Believe_in_blue; 08-30-2014, 04:36 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

          Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
          I hope Thomas and Sanders have terrible games week 1.

          Edit: Sollozzo I hope your qb has a bad week 1 too
          I'm hoping for a shootout... with Luck scoring the winning TD on a QB scramble to the end zone with time running off the clock....
          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, thatís teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

            We've kept our league at 10 teams for a while now. We expanded one season and it just killed the waiver wire fun. It wasn't just people picking them off the waiver wire as soon as they got on the radar leaving unhappy campers, it was people already had a lot of these guys riding their bench in the first place. Of course I guess the counter argument is that it puts a premium on drafting. But then I'd counter that with saying that injuries is what really screws up drafting more than anything... You can draft well, have an injury or two directly to your players or his teammates which impacts your player, and then have slim pickens on the waiver wire to do anything.

            And it seems we never trade in our league. Maybe that would change if we didn't cap the league at 10 teams and got used to dealing with the weakened waiver wire and the like...
            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, thatís teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

              We implemented fractional scoring this year. It sucks seeing a player get 99 yards and only get 9 points for that. So this year that will be 9.9 points.

              Also that eliminates the issue of a utility guy getting 9 yards rushing and 9 yards receiving yet scoring zero for that effort. That'll be 1.8 points this season.

              A point or two could be the difference in a game. And then factor that over the entire team and maybe those fractional points add up to 5 or more points overall. Which could swing a game. Basically, I see it as your players getting points for any positive yardage. Plus, a 1 or 2 yard loss isn't going to cost you an entire point if it moves you from say 70 yards (old scoring of 7 points) to 69 yards (old scoring of 6 points). Now it will just be 7 points down to 6.9 points in that scenario.

              If there is a downside to this I haven't figured out what it would be...
              Last edited by Bball; 08-30-2014, 05:01 PM.
              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, thatís teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                Yeah, fractional scoring is a must.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                  Speaking of FF, I have a league with one spot to fill (12 total teams) with live draft Tuesday at 10pm. It's competitive, has several years running, and includes individual defensive players.

                  Rosters:
                  QB, WR, WR, RB, TE, W/RB, K
                  LB, LB, DB, DB, DL, D
                  6 Bench spots

                  Good, fun, group. If you want to join, PM me an email to send invite.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                    I chose 10th in a 10 team non ppr league.

                    QB- Brees
                    RB- Stacy
                    RB- T Rich
                    WR- Jordy
                    WR- Floyd
                    TE- Graham
                    Flex- Garcon
                    Def- Seahawks
                    K- Gould

                    Bench- TY
                    Bench- E. Sanders
                    Bench- Ridley
                    Bench- B. Pierce
                    Bench- J. Hill
                    Bench- C. Clay

                    Any and all feed back is welcomed and will be appreciated. PS I had no expectations of Graham falling and when he did i pretty much threw my strategy out the window. LOL

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                      Pick Josh Gordon up IMMEDIATELY if he is still available in your league (owned in 42% of Yahoo).

                      We could be moments away from the NFL and its players agreeing to a new policy on drug testing.

                      A league source tells PFT that momentum keeps building for the new policy to get done. The source added, “I’m expecting an announcement at any time.”


                      and...

                      Those two changes may still come in time to help Browns receiver Josh Gordon and Broncos receiver Wes Welker, both of whom are suspended based on the current policy, but would not be suspended under the proposed new policy.

                      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...e-at-any-time/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                        Sounds like Arian Foster is more doubtful than questionable for today.
                        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, thatís teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Sounds like Arian Foster is more doubtful than questionable for today.
                          Just saw on the bottom line Houston inactivated him. That is a killer for fantasy players to get such little heads up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                            Just saw on the bottom line Houston inactivated him. That is a killer for fantasy players to get such little heads up.
                            I was able to grab his backup this morning (Blue) and insert him but that was about the best option I had on limited time. I have MJD on my bench but he's out this week... DeAngelo Williams is questionable himself with a hamstring so I didn't want to risk starting him... I have Terrance West (Cleveland) but he'd be a gamble anyway, plus he's got a tough matchup.

                            I suspect I'm in trouble this weekend.... Unless Blue kills, somebody just goes off, and the rest of my team all make their projections (Which just never happens).
                            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, thatís teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 2014-2015 Fantasy Football Thread

                              So far West would've been the better play. 4 points versus 8.6 on my bench. Not too late to turn that around... and hopefully 4.6 points isn't the difference maker in my matchup...
                              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, thatís teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X