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

2015 NFL Draft Thread

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

  • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I understand that. I questioned Gamble as to why he's automatically saying Dorsett's value kicks in during year 2, while saying it's hilarious people think Brown would be an impact player year 1 (Which wasn't said, btw). If you're going to give a rookie WR two years to be of value, it only makes logical sense, and consistency, to have that view for another rookie that plays a different position.

    Same thing, logic and consistency, applies to BlueCollar's point. If "reaching" is bad, because you can get similar talent later, that doesn't just apply to DT/NT, it applies to WRs as well.

    If we're going to use arguments as to why the Dorsett pick was the correct one, at least find arguments that don't apply to every position. Find one that's unique to Dorsett.
    Well let me clarify since I see that you don't get what I am saying.

    To me Dorsett value is higher than Brown just from a pure talent stand point. This is confirmed one by the COlts and by a former defensive coordinator in the NFL.

    As for impact in year two I in by no means think Dorsett will be riding the pine waiting to develop in year one. I think it is obvious that Dorsett will get either punt return duties just like TY did his rookie year and possibly return duties as well. Thats in addition to making a run at the 3 wr position and I think he has a very good chance to win that position even if it just means running clear out post routes to free up TY and Andre underneath. So all that to me is in year one.

    In year two though I see his potential value increasing due to the fact that TY may very well leave. By no means do I think thats "why" you draft him though because like I stated up above I think he is a better overall talent. Your two is just looking at what might very well be a Mike Wallace vs Antonio Brown situation for the Colts. I am not comparing players here just circumstances of contract year decisions that will be made by the Colts like it had to be made for the Steelers. IF you want a Colts reference point then lets say the Wayne/ Garcon decision that was made by Grigson and drafting TY. SOme of you may point out how well that worked out but I would point out that the team was in a complete different mode at that point in drafting TY. Total rebuilds vs championship roster moves with a two year window etc..

    Brown to me fits a need and certainly teams draft to address needs but many teams do this in round 2-7 not in round one. The way I understand it is that there is a value system and you draw hard lines in the first round. So a 7.7 never trumps a 8.2. The lines are broken by percentages in the later rounds of the draft to meet certain needs if necessary but not in round one.

    To be honest I respect this approach more than anything since the design is to protect you from "reaching" past a more valued/talented player in the most important round of the draft. Sure all the mock drafts and NFL specialist scream at everyone that you draft heavily on needs and certainly that is why pretty much all their predictions are 75% wrong in the first round and get progressively worse when you get past the first 10 picks. That to me is what happened with the Colts. People see need in the first round and assume that the approach of the draft should be to take the obvious choice while having no clue how each player is valued on the draft board. In the first round value trumps need. On fan boards need trumps everything because its glaring and they don't see what coaches see in player development or impacts of FA signings.

    This isn't to say that we as fans are stupid here. Its been a need on the COlts for a long time that goes beyond the years of Grigson but he has worked to that goal of stopping the run. To me he certainly isn't ignoring it either in FA or in the draft but many of you want the slam dunk NT in the draft and to me Brown wasn't it. Not in year 1 or in year 2 or in year 3.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 05-05-2015, 12:31 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

      I get what you're saying.

      My response to you was about one specific thing in your post, the comparison between Brown making an impact as a rookie and Dorsett making an impact in year 2.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

        And I fully disagree value trumps need.

        If the Colts took a QB in the first rd, I'm sure everyone would be scratching their heads. The question would be "Why take a QB when you already have Luck?" Would the answer "well, the QB must have more value than X" be a good enough answer to why a QB was taken? I would hope not. The QB might be more valuable than a NT, but it's not more valuable than what you already have. So value doesn't mean squat. It would be a wasted pick, for all intents and purposes, unless there was a plan to swap said QB for something of value later.


        And that's the issue. I FULLY understand the concept of BPA. I endorse that view, up to a certain point. Had Andre Johnson not signed with the Colts, I'd understand more about taking a WR. But the fact remains, the Colts didn't need another WR. That's why it's redundant. The question is does the extra value Dorsett bring over, say, Moncrief push the Colts to another level?

        The Colts were terrible against the run last year. Getting a player who helps fix a deficiency, to me, is more valuable than a player who takes a positional group from "really good" to "really really good."

        And yes, I also understand that you can get the need later on in the draft. But again the question is, is the value difference between the WRs the Colts already had and Dorsett larger or smaller than the value difference between the DTs the Colts already had and Brown.

        Does upgrading from Moncrief to Dorsett change the Colts trajectory? I don't think so. Does getting a run stopper change the Colts trajectory? I think so.
        Last edited by Since86; 05-05-2015, 12:43 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

          Or another way of putting it, value that addresses need is more valuable than value that addresses depth. (especially when it's the deepest position on the squad)
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Does upgrading from Moncrief to Dorsett change the Colts trajectory? I don't think so. Does getting a run stopper change the Colts trajectory? I think so.
            Well there's the crux. There are folks who believe the receiving corp is not as great/proven as some other folks believe. It's all a crap shoot until the end of the season it seems anyway.

            Couple of scenarios here. We may find Dorsett turns out to be a wasted pick and Malcom Brown is just killing it at NE. Could be Dorsett takes the team by storm and our three receiver sets are breaking records and taking us to the promise land. D'joun Smith beats out Toller as an amazing press back and Henry Anderson reins havoc as a poor man's JJ Watt. If the Colts had not leaned pretty heavy on defense in free agency I would probably be right behind you on this issue. But they did, not perfect, but also totally not ignored either.

            Can't wait until the football season completes when we all can have a good laugh after Luck and the Colts get their first SB win (this season I believe).
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

              The Colts had one of the best offenses in the entire NFL, and that's with them being one-dimensional. I know people say "Andrew Luck" like that explains how the offense is so good, but it's not like he's catching his own passes. Offense wasn't a problem last year, regardless of the 45-7 beatdown. Defense was, and has been for the past 15 years.

              EDIT: #1 in total passing yards, #1 yards passing per game, #1 in passing TDs, #5 in ypc. How much better do we think the passing game is gonna get?
              Last edited by Since86; 05-05-2015, 01:19 PM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                Taking a QB in the first isn't a good comparison because only one QB plays at a time, whereas 3 or 4 WR's play at a time.

                Comment


                • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                  Understood. The point of the example was to get people to agree there is a line between value over need. So now the discussion can be about where that line is, not whether it exists.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    True but you do need a defense to win championships (something the Colts don't seem to want to address as far as a philosophy)

                    I do agree its one of the WR's maybe an agent of one that would be bothered by this.
                    To me this isn't true. As a fan I find myself going there in my head because I am emotionally charged by the Peyton years and lack of run stopping defenses but overall the two are not the same. If anything Grigson has tried to address the needs but has been dealt many obstacles and admittedly some are of his own creation but as a philosophy he has made more than just a few roster moves to address the run defense.

                    To me he isn't a Bill Polain type GM and by that I mean the belief that he is the smartest man in the room arrogance that holds a franchise down from reaching its full potential. Don't get me wrong his mistakes are obvious of course but its not "ignoring" or some philosophical belief in building a team that has him holding back the run defense. To me its not that simple and it doesn't also doesn't boil down to incompetency.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                      Polian tried to address run defense too. He signed guys like Corey Simon, traded for Booger McFarland, etc.

                      It's about making defensive upgrades a priority.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I wonder if there would have been this much outrage a few years ago if the Pacers had kept Kawhi Leonard.
                        Frankly the fact this board hasn't exploded from the fact we traded a future Finals MVP for a backup PG is rather quite surprising to me.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Or another way of putting it, value that addresses need is more valuable than value that addresses depth. (especially when it's the deepest position on the squad)
                          And again its operating on the assumption that team needs don't change from year to year or that player growth like Hughes, Kerr, Chapman don't happen from year to year never mind health. IF Arthur Jones is on the field the opposing team ran for almost a yards less per carry. Too bad he was hurt for a large portion of 2014.

                          The fact of the matter is that teams draft in the first round based on potential mostly. Can I get a pro bowl player here type moves. Its not for need especially if that player X to be drafted is not sure shot upgrade to what you already have at that position already and that is what I think of Brown. This to me is more of why he wasn't drafted early and fell to the Colts pick. A good but not great player made out to be some missing piece NT that would be the answer to the run defense.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            And again its operating on the assumption that team needs don't change from year to year or that player growth like Hughes, Kerr, Chapman don't happen from year to year never mind health. IF Arthur Jones is on the field the opposing team ran for almost a yards less per carry. Too bad he was hurt for a large portion of 2014.

                            The fact of the matter is that teams draft in the first round based on potential mostly. Can I get a pro bowl player here type moves. Its not for need especially if that player X to be drafted is not sure shot upgrade to what you already have at that position already and that is what I think of Brown. This to me is more of why he wasn't drafted early and fell to the Colts pick. A good but not great player made out to be some missing piece NT that would be the answer to the run defense.
                            Just like I never said Brown would be an impact as a rookie, never did I say, or anyone else, that he's the missing piece.

                            Again, it's about priorities. Keeping the focus on offense, especially pass offense, when you're the best passing league in the team paints the picture that you're focused on offense, not fixing problems (i.e. defense). Had the Colts landed, say, Suh or Fairley or Ngata it really wouldn't have mattered they passed on an interior defensive linemen. But they whiffed on those guys as well. Once again, just like Polian, the Colts are trying to make fixes with late rd picks or cast offs. Make defense a priority.\

                            Having the best offense, doesn't get you to your goals. We've seen proof positive of this for the past 15 years. Something has to change. Einstein's definition of crazy and all that.
                            Last edited by Since86; 05-05-2015, 02:56 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Polian tried to address run defense too. He signed guys like Corey Simon, traded for Booger McFarland, etc.

                              It's about making defensive upgrades a priority.
                              Both of those moves happened when? 7-8 years after Polain arrived as the GM. If Grigson follows the same path then I will be as pissed at Grigson as I was at Polain but I doubt it will come to that. Grigson isn't drafting Larry Triplett type players.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2015 NFL Draft Thread

                                I really don't understand the draft the best talent available concept. That can work in basketball because trades are more often beneficial for teams and because one star can have such an impact on the game.

                                But in football its all about having a balanced team and you can't count on the ability to get value for an extra player at a position of strength.

                                So suppose Dorsett proves himself amazing this year. Awesome great pick, but if our run defense still sucks theres virtually no chance we would be able to trade Moncrief to be able to get help there. Nope it will be just another year of having whatever no name the Patriots just signed running for 200 yards and 4 TDs.

                                So yippee another year of tons of touchdowns. With no real shot at a superbowl.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X