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

Potential Draft Picks for the Indianapolis Colts in the 2018 NFL Draft

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

  • LuckSwagger
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post
    What do you think of this trade? Andrew Luck and the sixth round pick to the Browns for #1, #4, #35 and next years #1 pick?
    We all know you want Luck out of here in the worst way, but there's no sense in discussing that because it will never happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluboy
    replied
    What do you think of this trade? Andrew Luck and the sixth round pick to the Browns for #1, #4, #35 and next years #1 pick?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug
    replied
    Originally posted by bunt View Post

    Depends on how deep one thinks the difference makers go. It may go 12-13 deep accounting for the 4 QBs and how much one likes Edmunds, Smith, Ward, Fitzpatrick, or others.
    Yep. If their list of non-QB impact players is longer than I think, they may be more open to trading down. I'm probably fixated more on the top 3 (barkley, chubb, nelson) than they are. If they feel the difference between those and the next tier of players is slight... I think the only way they do it is if they have a player on their list that they know will still be there after trading down.

    I guess that's the good thing about having so many positions of need - more players on the list. OL? fine. Edge? Fine. LB? Fine. CB? Fine. We need help at all of those.

    Leave a comment:


  • bunt
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug View Post

    Now, now, now. The discussion has been reasonably civil the last few posts. Let's keep it that way. :-)



    It is true that some team might fall in love with a QB, and then overpay when he is available at 6. That's what it would take to get me to move, a really good deal. Swapping firsts to pick up another 2nd rounder isn't going to do it for me if I miss out on a guy who can make a difference right now and for another 5 years.
    Depends on how deep one thinks the difference makers go. It may go 12-13 deep accounting for the 4 QBs and how much one likes Edmunds, Smith, Ward, Fitzpatrick, or others.

    Leave a comment:


  • bunt
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

    Well what do you know. If you don't walk the company line here or kiss Andrew Luck's *** several times a day, you get your very own stalking troll. Welcome and keep it up. Do you have pom poms like the Minneapolis Brat?
    Lol..right. I don’t think I’ve “toed” the company line yet. Sounding a little anxious getting called on your “~stats”~.
    Last edited by bunt; 04-16-2018, 09:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluboy
    replied
    Originally posted by bunt View Post

    This makes it more likely that these QBs will be worth a king’s ransom!
    Well what do you know. If you don't walk the company line here or kiss Andrew Luck's *** several times a day, you get your very own stalking troll. Welcome and keep it up. Do you have pom poms like the Minneapolis Brat?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug
    replied
    Originally posted by bunt View Post

    This makes it more likely that these QBs will be worth a king’s ransom!
    Now, now, now. The discussion has been reasonably civil the last few posts. Let's keep it that way. :-)



    It is true that some team might fall in love with a QB, and then overpay when he is available at 6. That's what it would take to get me to move, a really good deal. Swapping firsts to pick up another 2nd rounder isn't going to do it for me if I miss out on a guy who can make a difference right now and for another 5 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • bunt
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

    I don't think either one of those QBs is worth a King's ransom. I think those teams will have a shot at one of them where they are drafting and if not, they can take a second tier QB like Jackson whose upside make him just as likely to be successful.
    This makes it more likely that these QBs will be worth a king’s ransom!

    Leave a comment:


  • PartyPeople
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

    I don't think either one of those QBs is worth a King's ransom. I think those teams will have a shot at one of them where they are drafting and if not, they can take a second tier QB like Jackson whose upside make him just as likely to be successful.
    Thing is, Buffalo has kind of tipped their hands about their desperation for a QB. I will be absolutely shocked if they stand still at pick #12 and don't trade up. I see it much less with Miami, but all it takes is one or two teams to fall in love with a guy to get a bidding war started.
    __________________________________________________

    Looking for dad jokes?
    Last edited by PartyPeople; 04-23-2018, 06:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluboy
    replied
    Originally posted by PartyPeople View Post

    I think Buffalo, Miami, or Arizona would absolutely trade up for Rosen or Mayfield. It's just a matter of if the Colts would be willing to accept their offers. If I'm Ballard, I'm standing pat without a king's ransom.
    I don't think either one of those QBs is worth a King's ransom. I think those teams will have a shot at one of them where they are drafting and if not, they can take a second tier QB like Jackson whose upside make him just as likely to be successful.

    Leave a comment:


  • PartyPeople
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post
    I have thought for weeks that it was a cinch for the QBs to go in the first six picks. I am now not so sure. I think Rosen is dropping and Mayfield should not be drafted that high. I think it will go Allen, Barkley, Darnold, Chubb, Nelson and then the Colts are up. I don't think that anyone is going to trade up for Rosen or Mayfield. I think the Colts pick right there and they may take Roquan Smith or Tremaine Edmunds. That would be a little high for both of them but if that is who you want, then you have to just draft them at six. Now, I am hoping at least two of the second round picks go for the offensive line and I hope we get lucky and they work out.
    I think Buffalo, Miami, or Arizona would absolutely trade up for Rosen or Mayfield. It's just a matter of if the Colts would be willing to accept their offers. If I'm Ballard, I'm standing pat without a king's ransom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluboy
    replied
    I have thought for weeks that it was a cinch for the QBs to go in the first six picks. I am now not so sure. I think Rosen is dropping and Mayfield should not be drafted that high. I think it will go Allen, Barkley, Darnold, Chubb, Nelson and then the Colts are up. I don't think that anyone is going to trade up for Rosen or Mayfield. I think the Colts pick right there and they may take Roquan Smith or Tremaine Edmunds. That would be a little high for both of them but if that is who you want, then you have to just draft them at six. Now, I am hoping at least two of the second round picks go for the offensive line and I hope we get lucky and they work out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluboy
    replied
    Originally posted by bunt View Post

    Not a single poster has said the oline is fine and needs not improved. Only you make up stats, dramatize, repeat the same thing, and give the Colts an ultimatum on who and when to draft. Try again.
    You mean like 50+ sacks for each of the last two years? Do you mean general ineptness for the last five years? Yes, I dramatize to point out that the only the Colts really need to do to start winning again is protect Andrew Luck. I haven't given anyone, including you any ultimatum. Yes, I want offensive line first but obviously I have become used to being disappointed and seeing us trying to fix the line with fourth round and lower draft picks, journeymen free agents and the like. It just doesn't work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug
    replied
    Peter King on the Colts draft position from today's MMQB:

    INDIANAPOLIS, PICKING SIXTH (OR TRADING)
    The Colts are not likely to trade down to 11 or 12, because their floor sounds like it’s a play-making linebacker like Roquan Smith or Tremaine Edmunds. No way GM Chris Ballard could count on one of them being there at 11 or 12. There’s a chance, but it’s very possible they both go in the top 10; San Francisco and Oakland, picking ninth and 10th, could take them in succession. Ballard could have his eye on Ward, which would be understandable; the Colts were last in the NFL last season in passing yards per play, allowing a gaudy 7.33. But the Colts will be very interesting to watch when they’re on the clock. Ballard is the type of GM who has so many holes on his roster that he wants to be blown away.

    Indy needs one of the top four quarterbacks to be there when it’s on the clock, so Miami or Buffalo would be tempted to pay a premium for the pick. For the Colts to consider moving from six to 11 or 12, I’m guessing the price would be that pick plus another first-rounder, plus a mid-round pick this year or next. Buffalo, for instance, might offer 12 and 22 in the first round this year, plus a third or fourth next year. That might be worth the risk for the Colts.


    Last edited by Doug; 04-16-2018, 08:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bunt
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

    When you take the beating he took for those years, anything is possible. How far from a lacerated kidney to a ruptured spleen. How much difference between a severe concussion and having brain bleeding. Yes, it was a bit overstated but I sincerely think that any QB would be risking his life after football playing behind this horrid line. I don't know about you but I am damn tired of watching teams run over our offensive linemen like they aren't even there. But if you are not interested in protecting the teams mega million dollar franchise player, so be it. It sure seems the team isn't interested in protecting him either.
    Not a single poster has said the oline is fine and needs not improved. Only you make up stats, dramatize, repeat the same thing, and give the Colts an ultimatum on who and when to draft. Try again.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X