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

Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

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

  • Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

    Good thing this didn't happen last week

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...el-will-start/

    Browns announce Manziel will start


    ESPN no longer needs to credit “media reports” for the news from Jay Glazer that Johnny Manziel will start on Sunday. The team has made it official.

    “We’ve made the decision to start Johnny this week against the Bengals,” Browns coach Mike Pettine said in a statement. “This decision is really not about Brian Hoyer or Johnny Manziel, it is about the Cleveland Browns. We are always going to make decisions that we feel are in the best interest of the team. Brian has done everything that has been asked of him and he has done so as a true professional. It’s never just any one position when a unit is not functioning at the level you’d like. We are trying to get the offense to perform at a higher level. Johnny has worked very hard to earn this opportunity and it will be very important for every member of the offense to elevate their play for us to obtain our desired result.”

    Said Manziel in the same release: “I’m very appreciative of the opportunity that Coach Pettine and the coaching staff have given me to be the starter on Sunday. I’ve tried to spend my entire season learning what it takes to become a pro and it’s been great to watch Brian because he knows what it takes. I’ve prepared every week to be ready to help the team however possible and my focus has been on improving every day. I’m very excited to get out on the field with my teammates on Sunday and to have the opportunity to make the Dawg Pound proud.”

    The statement doesn’t say whether Manziel will be attending Tuesday night’s Cavaliers game. Last week’s decision to take in a basketball game before he knew he wouldn’t be starting was cited by some as tangible evidence of Manziel’s work ethic, or lack thereof.

    “Although I am disappointed by coach’s decision, I respect him and his choice and will be there to support Johnny,” Hoyer said in the same release. “As always, I will do whatever I can to help this team win.”

    He’ll do that for three more weeks. After that (unless the team makes it to the postseason), Hoyer’s contract will expire and he’ll embark on the opportunity to find a team that he can help win by, you know, playing.

    Manziel was the 22nd overall pick in the draft, a selection that many believe was made at the behest of owner Jimmy Haslam. A man who, based on the photo attached to this story, is roughly the same height as Manziel. Which could put him in line for a snarky comment from the coach of Ohio’s other NFL team.

  • #2
    Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

    Jay Glazer was hilarious on twitter today complaining about not getting credit for breaking it first. ESPN never gives him credit

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

      [QUOTE=Basketball Fan;1936121]Good thing this didn't happen last week

      No doubt. I don't think Johnny Football is going to be very good next week but all the Browns needed on Sunday was one drive in the second half to beat the Colts. Makes no sense why the Browns HC would make the move in the second half of the game against the Bills but not go that route after so much sustained ineptitude in the Colts game.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

        It makes sense. It's Cleveland
        Super Bowl XLI Champions
        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

          I hope he sucks and is out of the league in a couple seasons.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

            I'd have been shocked if this didn't happen.

            That said, Manziel is a marginal upgrade, if that. He'll probably start out hot for 2-3 games then fall off.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

              The Browns WR aren't that good, so it doesn't matter who starts. I thought Hoyer missed some throws, but I also saw a few drops (especially two big ones by Josh Gordon) that hurt them in key situations as well.

              I think Johnny Football will have a good game or two, but will eventually demonstrate his lack of arm strength before he's knocked out of a game.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                Manziel is the 20th Browns quarterback since 1999. A reminder: over that same period, the Colts have gone from Peyton Manning to Andrew Luck, and the Packers have gone from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers.
                Damn - we're really fortunate as Colts fans ...............

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                  Skip Bayless loves Manziel and thinks he will be a star so the debate is settled then.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                    Damn - we're really fortunate as Colts fans ...............
                    That article isn't including Curtis Painter, Dan Orlovsky and Kerry Collins or Matt Flynn, Scott Tolzien and Seneca Wallace. It's not really fair to ignore that when guys like Ty Detmer(2), Bruce Gradkowski(1) and Thad Lewis(1) are included on the Browns' list.

                    Sure that bumps you up from 10% to 25% of the total starting QBs the Browns have had, but injuries played a big role in that as well.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                      Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                      Skip Bayless loves Manziel and thinks he will be a star so the debate is settled then.

                      Just like RG3 is a star. Anybody could do what Bayless and Stephen A. do.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                        Just like RG3 is a star. Anybody could do what Bayless and Stephen A. do.
                        At least RG3 has done something even if it was his rookie season, taking his team to the playoffs winning the NFC East and ROY so I get why people were high on him before he got hurt.

                        Manziel hasn't done anything in the NFL except make that TD a couple weeks ago.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          At least RG3 has done something even if it was his rookie season, taking his team to the playoffs winning the NFC East and ROY so I get why people were high on him before he got hurt.

                          Manziel hasn't done anything in the NFL except make that TD a couple weeks ago.
                          The only people high on RG3 his first year are people who don't know what they're looking at --- in other words, a large portion of the fan base. His success was circumstantial, and those circumstances were always going to be short-lived.
                          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: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                            That article isn't including Curtis Painter, Dan Orlovsky and Kerry Collins or Matt Flynn, Scott Tolzien and Seneca Wallace. It's not really fair to ignore that when guys like Ty Detmer(2), Bruce Gradkowski(1) and Thad Lewis(1) are included on the Browns' list.

                            Sure that bumps you up from 10% to 25% of the total starting QBs the Browns have had, but injuries played a big role in that as well.
                            True, but Painter/Orvolsky/Collins all started in the same season - 2011. From 1998 to present, the Colts have had Manning or Luck in 16 out of the 17 seasons. Obscenely good fortune.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Cleveland Browns announce Johnny Manziel will start

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              The only people high on RG3 his first year are people who don't know what they're looking at --- in other words, a large portion of the fan base. His success was circumstantial, and those circumstances were always going to be short-lived.
                              Kaepernick is another good case to look at. He's actually healthy and plays for a fantastic well-coached team. Quarterbacks like Kaepernick and RG3 confuse the hell out of defenses when they first show up and there's no tape on them. But give NFL defenses a couple of seasons of tape to look at, and those option quarterbacks will inevitably fail if they can't make NFL throws.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X