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

Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

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

  • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

    Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
    You'll never get a better time to get a replacement than now. If Manning plays, we are not going to have this good a draft pick and chance to get a good QB from the draft. Nobody said Luck is a sure thing, but he's as sure as they come. I'd rather go with Luck than someone with the 26th pick in the draft 2 years from now. Assuming Manning stays healthy. And we have no idea what's going to happen with PM now, and we may not really know even when March rolls around. So it would be stupid to pass on the chance to get Luck.
    Yep. You'd just be playing the percentages the right way going with Luck. It's not hard to see. 49ers and Packers didn't wait for Montana/Favre to retire before they got the replacements for those guys.

    In your lifetime, the Colts might not ever again be in the position they are in to grab the best QB prospect in over a decade. You can't count on this opportunity rolling by again as if it's a birthright.

    If I'm the Jags, Texans or Titans, I'd rather face Manning over for another 3-4 years than Luck for the next 12-14. I guarantee you the fans of those teams right now are hoping that the Colts do something stupid where they don't wind up with Luck.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

      Originally posted by RWB View Post
      Then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
      What's the point of this?
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        Yep. You'd just be playing the percentages the right way going with Luck. It's not hard to see. 49ers and Packers didn't wait for Montana/Favre to retire before they got the replacements for those guys.
        Yeah, and they found HOF caliber QBs in a supplemental draft, and with the 24th pick in the first round.

        They didn't have to have the #1 pick in order to find such a player.


        Believe it or not, Andrew Luck won't win every SB while he's in the NFL. Other QBs already in the league, or that have yet to be drafted, will win more than Luck does.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

          Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
          Im saying if PM is healthy enough to play, youll have time to find a replacement before he hangs it up.
          This is how we got into this situation already. Not a good idea.

          Besides that, I can fathom other idea's, just none of them are as good.

          Unless you think you'd trade down from an elite QB (Brady, Manning pre-injury, or Rodgers) to say ... Joe Flacco in hopes that the other positions you pick up in draft picks make up the difference. That's essentially what you're risking doing.

          Never should you pass on an elite QB or elite QB prospect unless you currently have one who's fairly young. We don't qualify, so we shouldn't pass on him. Also, no, not every QB picked near the top of the draft is an elite QB prospect.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

            Besides that the most important question isn't if Peyton is healthy for opening day 2012. The important question is Peyton healthy enough to stay healthy?

            I don't even think his doctors could give you an answer on that and be sure about it.

            Oh, and everyone knows Luck isn't a sure thing, but some picks are surer than others. That's why guys are drafted in the order they are drafted in.

            _
            Last edited by xBulletproof; 01-11-2012, 04:49 PM. Reason: Correction

            Comment


            • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

              Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
              What's the point of this?
              I don't know, sounds like a person who is a fan of the man rather than the team. I guess if you're implying that is rude and shouldn't have been posted just because the guy/gal gave their opinion then I can understand that. However, I being a Indianapolis Colts fan can also have an opinion that if someone has to question being a fan of the team may change because Peyton is wronged or no longer with the Colts then maybe they should seek another team.
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

              Comment


              • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                This is how we got into this situation already. Not a good idea.
                l
                You cant honestly sit there and say Colts EVER looked for a decent backup QB while Peyton was playing. Thats why Polians lost their job!!! Its pointless with some of you. I get that. I just cant wait until they let out some real info on PM status

                And RWB sorry I must of hit a sore spot with you somehow. Here are the facts. I barely remember the team without Peyton Manning. I remember some of Jim Harbaugh but before him I just dont. I was only 5 years old. I grew up watching Peyton. I was in Anderson for training camp when he was a rookie. I grew up watching one of the greatest QBs ever make Football the staple pro sport in Indiana. He is why the Indianapolis Colts are who they are today. I just dont wanna see him get snubbed IF he can play. Sue Me
                Last edited by CreekShow; 01-11-2012, 05:01 PM.
                I Bleed Blue

                Comment


                • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                  So we didn't get into this mess by not having a backup QB. Got it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                    They never tried. You must have missed the part where I said they can start seriously looking for a backup. To actually learn from Peyton while he finishes his career

                    Im done though. I can see why Since has to repeat everything now.
                    Last edited by CreekShow; 01-11-2012, 05:12 PM.
                    I Bleed Blue

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                      Originally posted by RWB View Post
                      I don't know, sounds like a person who is a fan of the man rather than the team. I guess if you're implying that is rude and shouldn't have been posted just because the guy/gal gave their opinion then I can understand that. However, I being a Indianapolis Colts fan can also have an opinion that if someone has to question being a fan of the team may change because Peyton is wronged or no longer with the Colts then maybe they should seek another team.
                      Oh, I gotcha. You can't tolerate ways of being a fan that differ from your own. Cool.

                      It seems pretty rational for me that a person's opinion of a person or organization would change based on that person/organization's actions. It also makes sense that other people are fans of an organization for reasons more unlikely to change, like location.

                      Would you continue to support the Colts if they became the Toronto Colts? And if not, should I subtly imply that you're not a true fan and should maybe consider rooting for another team? Is that the way I should go?
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Yeah, and they found HOF caliber QBs in a supplemental draft, and with the 24th pick in the first round.

                        They didn't have to have the #1 pick in order to find such a player.


                        Believe it or not, Andrew Luck won't win every SB while he's in the NFL. Other QBs already in the league, or that have yet to be drafted, will win more than Luck does.
                        No one said that he will win every SB while he's in the NFL. But the likelihood of him doing better than someone picked at 24 or later is much higher. We've seen him play at Stanford and he's looked quite good. Sure, that doesn't mean he's going to be great in the NFL. But it sure as hell beats picking someone later who is probably far less likely to do well.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          We're not talking past each other. You have no clue what I'm even saying.

                          I'm complaining about your inability to even entertain the idea of the Colts not drafting Luck, and then you proceed to tell me all the reasons, YET AGAIN, as to why you think they're going to draft Luck, and that you can't envision any other scenario.


                          Exactly... I've told you what I think will happen and why. I've not told you it is written in stone. I can imagine other scenarios including Flobot leaving Progressive Insurance and starting at QB for the Colts. That doesn't mean I have to give every scenario equal weight.

                          I wouldn't even dedicate this much time to this but you'll say something that seems like we're at least tracking on the same road and then all of a sudden you come up with something out of the blue that I never meant, didn't mean to imply, and certainly never said (like you taking it I meant Luck would be starting over Peyton on the Colts).

                          I don't care whether you agree or not... as long as you actually understand my point and how I arrived at it.

                          Right now, I have no idea what your point even is or whether you ever got my point or not. This is all why I said we're talking past each other.

                          Mr Creek thinks I have Luck jersey and want to throw Peyton under the bus (which couldn't be a further misreading of things).


                          I don't know whether to laugh, or just to say "**** it" and just completely ignore you.

                          I guess laugh. It has to be a joke for someone to call me irrational, beause I supposedly cant see the other side of the discussion, when the person calling me irrational refuses to see the other side of the discussion.
                          You're being irrational (and maybe that is the wrong word) because you're arguing when there's nothing to argue about. I've just been defending my opinion on how things will play out and you're welcome to have a different opinion. But you're picking apart what I'm saying as if it's seriously flawed thinking that led me to my opinion.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                            No one said that he will win every SB while he's in the NFL. But the likelihood of him doing better than someone picked at 24 or later is much higher. We've seen him play at Stanford and he's looked quite good. Sure, that doesn't mean he's going to be great in the NFL. But it sure as hell beats picking someone later who is probably far less likely to do well.
                            This is what some people don't understand. Its fun to say that we can pick a good Qb in the later rounds but most teams strike out multiple times before even getting a OK QB.

                            In about every draft you can bank on that around 10 or more QB's will be picked and most drafts don't yeild a better player that was pick outside of the first round. (Think about that..over a 100 Qbs have been cycled through in the last decade).

                            The Packers from 98 to when Rodgers was picked had tried 4 times. The same goes for most teams that try to find a QB in the later rounds so when you see the best prospect in a decade in your draft its beyond me why someone would want to trade that pick away. Each to his own I guess.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 01-11-2012, 06:05 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              This is what some people don't understand. Its fun to say that we can pick a good Qb in the later rounds but most teams strike out multiple times before even getting a OK QB.
                              That's better than I could say it. It probably is fun for the Packers to say they got Rodgers with the 24th pick, but fact is you're not getting Luck with anything other than the 1st pick.

                              Don't try to outsmart yourself. Don't get cute. Don't trade yourself out of the position of a golden opportunity just for the CHANCE to say that you were smart and got what you needed with a lower pick. Why play the lower percentages when you're in the position to play the high percentage?

                              Also should note that the game has continued to evolve since Rodgers was drafted. Rodgers was taken with the 24th pick but that was 7 years ago. Now, due in large part to Rodgers and a few other top tier QBs, more and more QBs who would've been 2nd/3rd/4th round picks are getting drafted higher and higher.

                              You've seen a huge influx of guys who were not as good of prospects as Rodgers getting drafted in the 1st or 2nd round. I can remember several arguments in the Bay Area media for the 49ers to take Rodgers over Alex Smith with the #1 pick. When that didn't happen, there were all these teams from #2 thru #23 who felt they didn't need a QB that badly, so they passed on Rodgers.

                              That's all changed now. The QB position has evolved to the point that teams can't picture themselves winning w/o a high level QB on their roster. So now you see teams reaching for guys like Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder fairly early in the 1st round. Years ago, these guys wouldn't have been picked this high but nowadays everyone is on the prowl for the next Rodgers. Basically, Gabbert, Ponder and Jake Locker were picked several spots higher than Rodgers (despite not being better prospects) because teams don't want to take the chance of the next Rodgers slipping by them.
                              Last edited by d_c; 01-11-2012, 07:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts plan to draft Luck, sources say

                                Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post

                                Would you continue to support the Colts if they became the Toronto Colts? And if not, should I subtly imply that you're not a true fan and should maybe consider rooting for another team? Is that the way I should go?
                                No I would not root for the Colts if they moved to Toronto. I do root for the team because they are from Indy/Indiana. You can imply all you want because I would not be a true fan if they moved. I understood why Baltimore fans hated the Indy Colts team and if the Pacers moved to Vegas then I would hate the Pacers. Chuck Person was one of my all time favorite Pacers. Was traded and I personally thought it was a bad idea, but I didn't give up on the team.
                                Last edited by RWB; 01-11-2012, 10:15 PM.
                                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X