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

Houston /Indy

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

  • Re: Houston /Indy

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    How does it not? If you trade the #1 draft pick you're going to get 5-6 draft picks in return. I've already laid this out.

    The Chargers got two firsts, a third, and a fifth round draft pick for Eli. You don't think the Colts are going to that, or even more than that, for Luck?

    They're atleast going to get 4 draft selections for him.
    Again, if we get the number one pick I wouldn't be mad if we trade Luck for picks and maybe a player, maybe move down few picks and get RG3.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Houston /Indy

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      How does it not? If you trade the #1 draft pick you're going to get 5-6 draft picks in return. I've already laid this out.

      The Chargers got two firsts, a third, and a fifth round draft pick for Eli. You don't think the Colts are going to that, or even more than that, for Luck?

      They're atleast going to get 4 draft selections for him.
      They will get a couple of high draft picks and a couple of lower picks. That doesn't mean thats equal value for a talent as Luck. Certainly the true value is in the first 3 rounds as you have more of a chance to hit on those picks.

      On the flip side if you trade Manning in 2 years you get high draft picks and cap relief since Luck will only cost 6 million per year or so. Manning will then be closer 40 and on the decline.

      I am just pointing out that there is more ways to rebuild this team than trading Luck for picks.

      Comment


      • Re: Houston /Indy

        You can have the best receivers in the world and it doesn't mean squat if you don't have a player who can get them the ball.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Houston /Indy

          Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
          This entire argument is stupid. If the Colts purposefully tank in order to get a draft pick, I will NOT be a Colts fan. That is not how an organization should be run, nor should that ever be the mentality of a player. You don't ever ask a player to give 50% in order to get a draft pick. That's just stupid. You play to win the game, and it doesn't matter if the #1 pick is on the line. I want the #1 pick too, but I tried rooting against the Colts last night and hated it. The Colts players would be absolutely disgusted if they were told to not give 100%.

          As far as I'm concerned, Luck is no guarantee. Sure we can trade the pick for more picks, but you don't play to lose. You never, ever play to lose. If we get the pick, then do what you want. If we lose next week, then this entire argument is a waste of time. But you have much bigger issues if we tank. I would then worry about whether or not this organization actually does care about winning.

          This is not about the greater good. This is not about 10-15 years in the future. The players playing don't give a **** about that. You play to win the game, and doing anything other than that is just horseshit.
          Why would the players not care about their future? Losing this next game is the best thing for the players futures that stay on the Colts. It is the smart thing to do.

          You play to win the game, then why not set yourself up to win games in the future??? Why win POINTLESS games and HINDER yourself in the future? I totally disagree with fans like you who believe it's more important to win completely pointless and meaningless games right now and totally reduce the value of the pick we get which will set us up for MEANINGFUL wins in the future.

          I am going to be extremely mad if the Colts win the next game. In my eyes they are doing us a disservice by blowing the chance at the number 1 pick which would help set our team up for success in the future. Winning three games this season means jack ****, the only thing it does is HURT us.. so please explain to me why fans like you want to hurt the future of our team for a few meaningless and worthless wins?

          Comment


          • Re: Houston /Indy

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            They will get a couple of high draft picks and a couple of lower picks. That doesn't mean thats equal value for a talent as Luck. Certainly the true value is in the first 3 rounds as you have more of a chance to hit on those picks.

            On the flip side if you trade Manning in 2 years you get high draft picks and cap relief since Luck will only cost 6 million per year or so. Manning will then be closer 40 and on the decline.

            I am just pointing out that there is more ways to rebuild this team than trading Luck for picks.
            Eli brings in 4 draft picks while Carson Palmer brings in one. Teams place a lot higher premium on draft picks than they do the actual players.

            If Eli was traded now do you think he'd get less or more value than what the the Chargers got out of him? Less. By far less.

            What team is going trade for PM, and his HUGE contract, when they haven't seen him throw the ball in a year?

            To think that PM is going to bring more in a trade than the #1 pick is just ignoring the standard operating procedure of the NFL.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Houston /Indy

              Originally posted by trey View Post
              Why would the players not care about their future? Losing this next game is the best thing for the players futures that stay on the Colts. It is the smart thing to do.

              You play to win the game, then why not set yourself up to win games in the future??? Why win POINTLESS games and HINDER yourself in the future? I totally disagree with fans like you who believe it's more important to win completely pointless and meaningless games right now and totally reduce the value of the pick we get which will set us up for MEANINGFUL wins in the future.

              I am going to be extremely mad if the Colts win the next game. In my eyes they are doing us a disservice by blowing the chance at the number 1 pick which would help set our team up for success in the future. Winning three games this season means jack ****, the only thing it does is HURT us.. so please explain to me why fans like you want to hurt the future of our team for a few meaningless and worthless wins?
              NFL players don't care about the future because a lot of those players don't last that long anyway.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Houston /Indy

                The Colts have more talent than their performance this year would indicate. However, they've been so awful for the most part, one can get lulled into thinking otherwise. I'm not saying there are not serious issues to address, but there is more talent than a 2-13 record even without Manning would lead one to believe.

                There are a variety of reasons we are 2-13, some short term, some long term, some out of the club's control, others completely within it.

                1) Manning out for the year (Speaks for itself and out of anyone's control).

                2) Polian regime refuses to retool/restructure team properly to legitimately compete for a championship: long-term failure to address weakness in the D-line (DT specifically), allowing DB quality and depth to completely erode, poor drafting (see Ugoh & Huges, for example), inability to find even a reasonable kick return threat, decision to hire Caldwell and staff.

                2) Poor coaching - D, STs, clock management, motivating players, in-game adjustments, play calling gaffs, etc., which is on the entire Caldwell-led staff.

                3) Failure by FO & puppet coach to simply play the best remaining QB as indicated by training camp performance (Orlovsky). Includes prideful, obstinate forcing of Painter into undeserved starting role & desperation wasteful failure of signing old, washed-up crony K. Collins.

                4) Effect of having above two completely incapable QBs start bulk of season deflated team morale and competitive spirit. Effectively, they lost all sense of purpose as they knew in their heart of hearts they had virtually no chance to win week in and week out with such horrid QB play/leadership. In other words, they lost confidence in their QB and, by extension, themselves/team as a whole.

                So, are there serious issues that need addressed? Hell yes. Is this team really as bad as two wins would suggest? No. Who's responsible? I think we all know by this point. The head honcho of football matters needs to be shown the door ASAP.
                Last edited by D-BONE; 12-23-2011, 04:03 PM.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • Re: Houston /Indy

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Eli brings in 4 draft picks while Carson Palmer brings in one. Teams place a lot higher premium on draft picks than they do the actual players.

                  If Eli was traded now do you think he'd get less or more value than what the the Chargers got out of him? Less. By far less.

                  What team is going trade for PM, and his HUGE contract, when they haven't seen him throw the ball in a year?

                  To think that PM is going to bring more in a trade than the #1 pick is just ignoring the standard operating procedure of the NFL.
                  My post was in 2 years. You know what I think IRsay will do based on having both players in year one.

                  If they trade Manning after next year he will get atleast 2 first round picks for him. Geshh if a washed up reciever in Roy Williams gets you a first, a third and a 6th then I think Manning will get you a better deal.

                  In addition that big lump sum of money due to him this year will be paid for....So I am not ignoring anything.

                  Manning will have more value than most qb's and especially Palmer after he comes back and I have to believe that Irsay will do everything he can to have Luck and Manning.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Houston /Indy

                    Luck isn't going to sit behind Manning, especially for two years.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Houston /Indy

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Luck isn't going to sit behind Manning. It's a pipe dream.
                      Now who is the negative?
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Houston /Indy

                        I prefer realistic.

                        People compare it to the Farve/Rodger situation and it's 100miles different than that situation. First QB taken compared to, what, the third? First pick compared to the 24th. Rodgers wasn't being described as one of the best QB prospects and people actually had Alex Smith ahead of him, who was taken with the first pick.

                        You're going to ask Luck to give up a lot of money to sit because it just delays his progress. He's ready to play in the NFL right now. Especially when you start talking about the old NFL CBA and how much rooks were getting paid compared to this CBA. He's already going to lose out on a lot of money in just that regard, and you're going to ask him to voluntarily lose more?

                        Doubt it. Anything is possible, but it's extremely unlikely. He's going to want to play from day 1.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Houston /Indy

                          He fell right into that trap.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Luck isn't going to sit behind Manning, especially for two years.
                          I think he will sit for one atleast and thats what the COlts need to do to trade Manning for more picks.

                          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                          The Colts have more talent than their performance this year would indicate. However, they've been so awful for the most part, one can get lulled into thinking otherwise. I'm not saying there are not serious issues to address, but there is more talent than a 2-13 record even without Manning would lead one to believe.
                          I wouldn't call the 1997 Colts light years away in talent from the 2011 colts either. They had Marshall Faulk, A good up and coming LT in Tarik Glen and a HOF WR in Harrison and the year prior they went 9-7 with the same QB.
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 12-23-2011, 04:27 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Houston /Indy

                            One last thing before I have to jump off here. Those picks don't promise you a much better team. They could easily become a Tony Ugoh, Gonzo, Mike Pollak, Jerry Hughes type bust or an injury proned safety like Bob.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Houston /Indy

                              No one knew what Marvin or Tarik would turn into.

                              The Colts had 1 pro bowl player the season before PM was drafted. Faulk.
                              The Colts had 4 pro bowlers, not named Peyton Manning, last season. Reggie, Jeff Saturday, Freeney, and Mathis.

                              And that's not even talking about Bethea who has been a Pro Bowler in the past. If you want to add on Tarik and Harrison, then you'd need to add on Bethea and Angerer to the total as well.

                              So instead of it being 1-4 it's 3-6. I think doubling up the amount is a pretty significant advantage.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Houston /Indy

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                I think he will sit for one atleast and thats what the COlts need to do to trade Manning for more picks.
                                Luck isn't going to sit behind anyone for a year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X