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

Luck and Wilson

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

  • Luck and Wilson

    In case you missed it, there's a bunch of Luck vs Wilson on ESPN this morning after a Bronco CB stated Wilson was better than Luck.

    First... my care factor is pretty low on this topic. I'm confident in Luck as most folks know, have been since Day 0. I like Wilson; I've stated thus during the 2012 draft. Luck, Wilson, Tannehill, Cousins, Foles were who I said I liked out of that draft, and every one of those guys has proven to be a gamer. I said at that time Wilson was my second favorite QB from that draft, and he still is.

    That said, I've also always said that he's not quite on Luck's level --- and that has not changed. I still love Wilson's game. But he's just not quite Luck. Never will be. That is no knock against Wilson, this is a pure individual-vs-individual break-down. Luck measures higher in just about every category, if only by a hair in some of those categories. Everyone now knows most of the arguments... that Wilson has less on his shoulders... that his team is a lot better... and I fully agree with those sentiments. I just wish people could realize that just because I think one player is better, doesn't mean I don't like and respect the other. Wilson is a helluva ballplayer, and with that surrounding cast, he's likely lined up to win more SBs. I also don't think it'll last forever. But that's down the road.

    But the funny thing to me is the very fact that Luck DIDN'T DO ANYTHING to warrant this discussion. The Seahawks engage in a massive high-drama victory against Denver in a SB rematch -- a situation that hasn't occurred in 30+ years --- and we're talking about ---- ANDREW LUCK?!?

    That right there is how you know Luck is respected. He had absolutely nothing to do with that game, didn't say anything, didn't partake in the game, was 3000 miles away --- and they're talking about him. They aren't comparing Wilson to Manning... they're comparing him to Luck.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...denver-broncos

    and

    http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11569182

    The real key is... will Indy ever put the cast around Luck equal to what Wilson currently has? I whole-heartedly agree that if you switched QBs... Seattle would be devastingly good, while Indy likely wouldn't even make the playoffs, and that to me is the ultimate factor as to why I think Luck is just a better QB and player. Wilson is good, but he needed to land in a situation much like what he did to see this success.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-22-2014, 01:52 PM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

  • #2
    Re: Luck and Wilson

    I don't really think Seattle'd be much different with Luck. They'd still be dominating on D and Lynch would be running over fools, I think it'd be a lot like Luck's tenure here really, just with a far more well rounded team. Seattle'd have the same "unleash the beast!" gripes we do. They just don't have those arguments now because they haven't had the OC upheaval and drastically different approaches we've had.

    And no, we're never going to put that kind of cast around Luck. Grigson's wasting his cheap years, he's going to be the highest paid player in the league on his new deal. Should be anyway.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Luck and Wilson

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      I don't really think Seattle'd be much different with Luck. They'd still be dominating on D and Lynch would be running over fools, I think it'd be a lot like Luck's tenure here really, just with a far more well rounded team. Seattle'd have the same "unleash the beast!" gripes we do. They just don't have those arguments now because they haven't had the OC upheaval and drastically different approaches we've had.

      And no, we're never going to put that kind of cast around Luck. Grigson's wasting his cheap years, he's going to be the highest paid player in the league on his new deal. Should be anyway.
      Don't really know that it's been wasted, we've made it to the playoffs each year and gotten farther each year... you don't go from 2-14 to SB winner usually in a 2-year span. Wilson was drafted by a team that was damn near ready to rock, they just needed a QB.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Luck and Wilson

        Say the Colts drafted Russell Wilson instead of Luck. Do they still win 22 games the past two seasons? Do they win a playoff game? Wilson is perfect for what they have in Seattle, but could he still be as efficient behind a much worse o-line and also being asked to carry a heavier load?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Luck and Wilson

          Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
          Say the Colts drafted Russell Wilson instead of Luck. Do they still win 22 games the past two seasons? Do they win a playoff game? Wilson is perfect for what they have in Seattle, but could he still be as efficient behind a much worse o-line and also being asked to carry a heavier load?
          I wouldn't think so. Hard saying though, as we haven't seen Wilson in that situation.

          I think it seems silly, but do you guys think Luck could do what Wilson is in Seattle? I think Luck is pretty easily the better QB, but I don't think that necessarily be more of a game manager type QB.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Luck and Wilson

            Trade supporting casts and I think it would be obvious that Luck is the better QB.

            Obviously I think the Denver cornerback was attempting to be overly complementary toward Wilson and not slight Luck, but obviously it comes off wrong to Indianapolis fans.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Luck and Wilson

              I don't like all the hypothetical arguments for both players. Watch both guys play. Every other game, Luck has to run for his life, and still finds ways to win. I don't think Wilson gets the 2013 Colts team to the playoffs once Wayne got injured. Luck literally had one reliable receiver, TY Hilton. The rest of the receivers and running game were comprised of cab drivers
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Luck and Wilson

                Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
                Say the Colts drafted Russell Wilson instead of Luck. Do they still win 22 games the past two seasons? Do they win a playoff game? Wilson is perfect for what they have in Seattle, but could he still be as efficient behind a much worse o-line and also being asked to carry a heavier load?
                I can't say this enough. OL doesn't matter if you have a truly elite QB. Peyton's first couple lines were worse than Luck's. Monumentally, out of this world, not in the same sport, worse lines than Wilson's had. A great QB makes his line look good, it's not the other way around, if a QB's great he doesn't need 6 seconds of protection to find a receivers. The only thing less important for a franchise QB is RBs.

                Know who has the best pass protection in the NFL so far this year? They wear blue and white.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Luck and Wilson

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  I can't say this enough. OL doesn't matter if you have a truly elite QB. Peyton's first couple lines were worse than Luck's. Monumentally, out of this world, not in the same sport, worse lines than Wilson's had. A great QB makes his line look good, it's not the other way around, if a QB's great he doesn't need 6 seconds of protection to find a receivers. The only thing less important for a franchise QB is RBs.

                  Know who has the best pass protection in the NFL so far this year? They wear blue and white.
                  I disagree with this. First, Peyton's early lines weren't worse than Luck's. Second, even elite QBs need a line to function.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Luck and Wilson

                    I think this argument is silly, Luck is a better QB, not a single doubt in my mind on that.
                    #LanceEffect

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Luck and Wilson

                      I just want to push the "Wilson has a ring, how many does Luck have? lolololol" morons into a pit of angry wasps.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Luck and Wilson

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Don't really know that it's been wasted, we've made it to the playoffs each year and gotten farther each year... you don't go from 2-14 to SB winner usually in a 2-year span. Wilson was drafted by a team that was damn near ready to rock, they just needed a QB.
                        I can't look at any faction of the team and confidently say it's improved since Luck's arrival. Maybe CBs and WR, but the OL still needs work, our defense needs pass rushers, speed, and linebackers that excel in pass coverage, etc. We have one solid tight end and another who can't even catch a cold, and an effective but older running back.

                        When you look at the # of draft picks AND money spent during free agency, we should be a lot closer to well-rounded like Seattle than we were two years ago. I think we've somehow gotten worse, and Luck's incredible ability to win is masking that. We've wasted a lot of money and draft picks.
                        Last edited by imawhat; 09-22-2014, 11:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Luck and Wilson

                          That 2012 team was terrible, man, don't know how you can't see improvement in a number of areas. You already listed two areas. Our pass-rush issues only recently surfaced due to losing one man for the season.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Luck and Wilson

                            You give luck that defense and supporting cast on offense and he would look much better. Hell, just give us his o-line and one pass rusher and he's better.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Luck and Wilson

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              I can't look at any faction of the team and confidently say it's improved since Luck's arrival. Maybe CBs and WR, but the OL still needs work, our defense needs pass rushers, speed, and linebackers that excel in pass coverage, etc. We have one solid tight end and another who can't even catch a cold, and an effective but older running back.

                              When you look at the # of draft picks AND money spent during free agency, we should be a lot closer to well-rounded like Seattle than we were two years ago. I think we've somehow gotten worse, and Luck's incredible ability to win is masking that. We've wasted a lot of money and draft picks.
                              From 2012 we are clearly better at every position except OLB, and that's only because Mathis is hurt.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X