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

So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

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

  • #61
    Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Do you honestly think this draft or next years draft has what it takes to make this team a superbowl contender. You have to remember that any rookie will also need to develop and their aren't many WR that can come in a make a big impact right away. There are some but not that many over the years that have had a big impact and there are probably even less CB's or defensive players that the Colts need that have made a huge impact as well.
    No, I don't, which is why I would draft Luck. But that leaves Peyton out in the cold, doesn't it? I wouldn't blame Peyton for wanting to leave Indy if we draft Luck.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      There is no reason to make a deal on draft day when Peyton's status is still unknown. What if you trade Luck and Peyton has a major setback?
      It seems like the biggest question mark is whether Peyton can throw the ball with the same velocity he used to -- that's been the problem before and after his latest surgery, although perhaps that's changed now with the recent news about him starting to throw again. While all of us as fans have to guess about the current status of Peyton's recovery, I think the Colts will be able to watch him work out and determine very clearly whether he has it or not -- can he throw the ball with his former velocity? Yes, there will always be the chance of re-injury, but that has not been the main concern or problem to this point, according to the published reports.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

        Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
        Im really confused on how people dont understand that we cant have Manning and Luck on the same team. Luck will not sit on the bench. #1 draft picks do not sit on the bench for a few years, def not QBs. If Peyton has any hope of playing, we have to trade the pick. I know we can get some quality picks and who knows maybe we can trade for Barkely next year.

        I just dont think you have to draft someone like Luck. I know everyone says hes the next big thing, but I dont think you have to have the next big thing to win. Look at Andy Dalton and others who have came in and made an impact right away. There are going to be gems at the QB spot in every draft. I think that if Peyton has any chance of playing we have to trade on Luck.

        To be honest, how they play out this whole situation might change how I view the Colts franchise. It might sound dramatic, but they are in a position to change the whole landscape of this team. They better not mess things up
        Like you said this is a Franchise, I don't feel there are any moves that we can make in the draft that will push us to a championship in Peyton's final couple of years. We have to make sure that we think about life after Peyton, and stop saying that he will not sit, no one knows that... at all, and just because something has not happened before does not mean that it can not happen.

        And I will add that there are not Gems at QB in every draft.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

          Originally posted by Really? View Post
          How do you know any of this? All speculation, I will just add what I have seen, Peyton never really seems uncomfortable besides those times he is not on the field, my assumption is that Peyton is confident in himself and is not worried about Luck taking his spot.
          It's common sense.....DUH!
          In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

            Originally posted by Scot Pollard View Post
            It's common sense.....DUH!
            Nope, just Common speculation...
            Why so SERIOUS

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              No offense but why is he obligated to do that? The Colts were dumb enough to give him that contract given how risky his health was to begin with.

              He's not obligated to care about the Colts future anymore than the Colts are obligated to care about his.

              His star will rise if he wins multiple SBs because that's what all these players are judged by at the end of the day: championships. He knows this after all that's what he'll be judged on.

              Nobody cares about humility twenty years from now you're remembered by what you do on the field/court and not much else. Jordan is revered because of all the titles he won but not much else.
              I could be wrong, but I didn't think the Colts had to pay him next season. That is, I thought they had the choice.

              As for another SB, I don't believe the odds are worth it versus the risks associated with him playing. But I will not be surprised if he wants to keep playing because he's so driven. I just don't think it's in his best interests.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                Anyone listen to Irsay this evening? I interpreted his statements to mean...we are drafting Luck.

                Lots of talk about a new era. He used the R word. Rebuilding. He spoke a lot about the GM, coach and QB being the key pieces. I could hear the saliva drip when the topic of the draft came up.

                Very little was said about Peyton. IF he was planning to build around Peyton, I don't think the interview would have went that way. It was crystal clear he was avoiding Peyton and my take is that the interviewer was told not to ask about it. Of course, I could be wrong. I think Andrew Luck is going to be a Colt.

                Comment


                • #68
                  That Andrew Luck kid is pretty good...

                  I want him. he just dominated OK ST defense at the end of the game to win it.

                  EDIT: nvm, kicker missed an EASY FG... overtime.
                  Last edited by Ownagedood; 01-03-2012, 12:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                    We draft Luck
                    Trade Peyton to Jacksonville for MJD and their pick
                    Draft Justin Blackmon with Jacksonville's pick

                    We are set on offense for at least 7-9 years

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Wow the kicker missed another one... bad play calling to take it out of Lucks hands on that drive... OK ST is gonna win.


                      Btw I feel manning is done.. idk why

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                        I think Luck just answered this thread.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                          Luck was asked about the Colts and possibly playing behind Peyton in his post-game interview with ESPN.

                          Andrew Luck On Stanford's Loss - ESPN Video


                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                            Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
                            Im really confused on how people dont understand that we cant have Manning and Luck on the same team. Luck will not sit on the bench. #1 draft picks do not sit on the bench for a few years, def not QBs.
                            I think this is BS. The current MVP QB of the league did exactly that. Sure, he wasn't the number 1 pick, but who cares? It can be a proven formula for success.

                            Is it really that offensive to have to understudy for the best QB of all time for a season or two? If so, who does this kid think he is? He should absolutely welcome that opportunity. It should be a freaking dream come true!
                            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                            - ilive4sports

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                              Has Andrew Luck gone on the record in either direction as to how he thinks he might feel about the possibility of sitting behind Peyton Manning? I'd like to hear from him.

                              If he hasn't been asked, I'm sure he'll get it a thousand times before the draft.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: So...who should the Colts take with the #1 pick?

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Has Andrew Luck gone on the record in either direction as to how he thinks he might feel about the possibility of sitting behind Peyton Manning? I'd like to hear from him.

                                If he hasn't been asked, I'm sure he'll get it a thousand times before the draft.
                                Somebody already posted this(3 post before this one )

                                http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7418196

                                He talks about the Colts starting at 1:20
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X