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

NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

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

  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    I have always been genuinely confused by this. In one thread you'll argue that Polain is a HOF GM and has been voted best GM by Forbes for working with players with less team salary.

    So which one is it? You a fan of Polain or not? Are you happy with 2 superbowl appearances winning one or are you not?
    I think what makes him so great is also his down fall, which is a pretty common theme throughout history on any and every level.

    Hubris.

    Polian knows he's the smartest man in the room, and it puts him into trouble. Sometimes you're too smart for your own good, especially when it's coupled with extreme arrogance.

    And I'm not happy with two superbowl appearances. If Bill didn't stick his head in his *** when talking about the defense, and they actually focused on getting better through the draft, the Colts could have won more.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Let me put it like this... "IF" Luck shows up overweight and blows off the Colts interview like Ryan Leaf did then I'll get behind trading the first overall pick for RG3 or another QB. You see that happening?? Me neither.. And everyone acts like Leaf and Manning were close to be picking number one. If you show up fat and lazy to your job interview,,,, check that you don't show up at all what is your real chances of getting hired?

      Manning and Leaf wasn't as close as people make it out to be.

      The difference between Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning was that one was willing to make football his life and the other one was not.. I think its safe to say that Luck is all business unlike Leaf, Leinart, Young, Russel or any of the first round draft bust at QB.
      Not every QB is a bust because of this. Alex Smith has always been a hard worker, or atleast I've never been aware of any phsyical issues, or how he studys their opponents/playbook.

      Yet people saw more talent in him than they did Aaron Rodgers.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

        Sollozzo,

        I've said it from the beginning. If Peyton isn't coming back, or if he's a question mark, you draft Andrew Luck.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

          What a crazy time this is for Indy. We're about to host the freaking Super Bowl. Then once that's done, the attention will IMMEDIATELY shift to what happens with Manning/Luck.

          These next couple of months will interesting to say the least....

          Comment


          • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Not every QB is a bust because of this. Alex Smith has always been a hard worker, or atleast I've never been aware of any phsyical issues, or how he studys their opponents/playbook.

            Yet people saw more talent in him than they did Aaron Rodgers.
            The 2005 Qb draft class was considered weak by many and not everyone thought Smith was heads above Rodgers..

            Alex Smith was a smart prospect out of a small program and I wonder how having 6 offensive coordinators in 6 years has affected him. I think thats a tough challenge for anyone and I am not sure how even PM would have done early in his pro career with 6 OC's.

            Also consider this, one of the reasons the niners didn't choose Rodgers is because he rubbed Nolan the wrong way for some reason. Other teams saw potential for Rodgers but like many draft day drops a team need at a certain position trumps a lot of other things.

            Either way Alex Smith was in a weak QB draft class and he wasn't nearly a clear number one as Luck is now.

            Comment


            • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

              There isn't a single team in the league, maybe other than GB, that had any clue Aaron Rodgers was going to be as good as he is.

              While it might not have been a deep draft, the evaluation on the players was off and their expectations had nothing to do with their evaulations.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NF...yer_selections

              There's the draft. Where players were taken doesn't come close to where they should have been taken.

              Roddy White was the 6th WR taken in that draft. Following WRs like Mike Williams, Braylon Edwards, Troy Williamson (who?), Matt Jones and Mark Clayton.

              Was the the 6th best WR in that draft? Hardly.

              The draft is always a crapshoot, whether your talking about QBs or all positions.

              And I know I've said this, but I'll say it again for the record. I think Andrew Luck is going to be good. GOAT good? I doubt it, but he's gonna be good.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                The Colts have had the biggest impact player in the entire league on their roster for the past 11 seasons (not including this one), and they only have one SB ring to show for it.

                QBs with less of an impact on the game than Peyton have more rings than Peyton does.

                That's my point. We've already wasted 10 years of the Greatest QB to ever play the game, because we relied solely on him, rather than buidling a good team.

                Excuse me for not wanting to go down the same exact path so soon.


                Or atleast I should have said "wanted." With Polian's gone, who knows what they'll do. I have a lot more faith in a new FO building an actual team with Andrew Luck than I did with Polian.
                How many SBs are won by teams that do not have an exceptional QB? How many SBs are consistently won by impact players at other positions. To argue that because the colts did not win more often with Manning is to ignore all the other issues that this team has. You have to have a great QB plus, not only.

                Comment


                • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                  Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                  How many SBs are won by teams that do not have an exceptional QB? How many SBs are consistently won by impact players at other positions. To argue that because the colts did not win more often with Manning is to ignore all the other issues that this team has. You have to have a great QB plus, not only.
                  Where did I say they didn't need exception QB play? I haven't.

                  I said that they don't need Andrew Luck to win Super Bowls.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NFL Draft Watch: The Race for Luck

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    There isn't a single team in the league, maybe other than GB, that had any clue Aaron Rodgers was going to be as good as he is.

                    While it might not have been a deep draft, the evaluation on the players was off and their expectations had nothing to do with their evaulations.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NF...yer_selections

                    There's the draft. Where players were taken doesn't come close to where they should have been taken.

                    Roddy White was the 6th WR taken in that draft. Following WRs like Mike Williams, Braylon Edwards, Troy Williamson (who?), Matt Jones and Mark Clayton.



                    Was the the 6th best WR in that draft? Hardly.

                    The draft is always a crapshoot, whether your talking about QBs or all positions.

                    And I know I've said this, but I'll say it again for the record. I think Andrew Luck is going to be good. GOAT good? I doubt it, but he's gonna be good.
                    Certain drafts are more of a crap shoot than others and this one 2005 was pretty much a mess but I agree that no one knew Rodgers would be this good but there are always a couple of guys that surprise people and it should be noted that Rodgers wouldn't be this good if he didn't work on his throwing motion.

                    As far as Alex over Rodgers it wasn't a huge difference IMO. Rodgers fell because of team needs just like guys last year. No way should have Ponder have gone to the vikings and everyone thought that when he was drafted 12th. Teams reach and guys fall based a lot on needs. Who really needed a QB in 2005?
                    Last edited by Gamble1; 01-03-2012, 08:02 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X