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

I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

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

  • I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

    Honestly. If Peyton fully recovers, I think he's going to have the biggest FU season of all time. The touchdown record could fall. I think if the Colts were smart, they trade the number one , get a ton of athletic defensive players like Burfect from ASU and a 1st round corner like the kid from LSU, Morris Claiborne. He could be had with a top 10 pick, Burfect will be in the 20's, so if they can get two first rounders this year, they could really build an outstanding defense. Chuck Pagano is a defensive guy.

    Scenario: Indy trades the number one pick to the Browns for there two first rounders, a 2nd rounder ( 36) and Joe Haden. Now the Colts have the number 4, 22, 33 and 36th pick in this years draft. Your starting DB's are set Haden is fantastic and Jerraud Powers is one of the most underrated corners in the league. With the 4th pick, you take RG3. With the 22nd, maybe Mark Barron, Saftey from Alabama, or Michael Brockers , DE from LSU, or maybe you grab a playmaking receiver like Michael Floyd or RG3's Baylor WR, Kendall Wright. Or you can sure up your Oline. The 33 and 36 picks will net you someone really good. For instance, Vontaze Burfict is a classic top 10 talent that's gunna drop because of discipline questions. He could be there at 33, ripe for the picking. You might even see Dont'a Hightower, ILB from Bama, available. The Colts could really restock big time if they trade this number one.
    Last edited by Foul on Smits; 02-06-2012, 12:45 AM.

  • #2
    Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

    i completely disagree sorry....... i would rather have a potential phenomenon in Luck and be set for 10-14 years than have a questionable Peyton that might not last more than 2 years

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

      RG3 is a potential phenomenon.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

        If this team doesn't take this golden opportunity to build a great defense, they are foolish. Manning is an all time great, but he only netted one ring, mostly because the Colts defense was horrible. They have an opportunity to get there future QB and get 3 defensive starters that are first round quality.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

          I don't. I think they should take Luck and cut ties with Peyton, and I've done a complete 180 on it in the last 8 or so weeks. We're what, 9 months from Peyton's neck fusion? His own agent is giving interviews in the last couple days and won't put a timetable on anything. If we had anything close to a guarantee Peyton could actually play again, I'd be with you, trade it, load up, try and keep the FA vets, and win some rings. But we don't.

          I adore Peyton, I'll probably shed a tear when we don't pick up the option, but with so many FAs and aging core guys it's time to move on. Keeping him and Luck is the absolute dumbest decision possible. And if his nerve magically regenerates after we release him, so be it. It won't be any less smart a business decision. I hate how it's been handled to this point, but there's no other choice to me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

            You wouldn't trade Manning, Brady or Aaron Rodgers at the age of 25. Luck hasn't proven he's that good, but that's what his potential is, so if you trade him that's what you have to treat him as. Which pretty much means he's off limits.

            Trading this pick would have been like Cleveland trading Lebron James pick before the draft. Just monumentally dumb.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
              You wouldn't trade Manning, Brady or Aaron Rodgers at the age of 25. Luck hasn't proven he's that good, but that's what his potential is, so if you trade him that's what you have to treat him as. Which pretty much means he's off limits.

              Trading this pick would have been like Cleveland trading Lebron James pick before the draft. Just monumentally dumb.
              No it wouldn't. It'd be like the Spurs trading the Duncan pick w/o a guarantee Robinson gets healthy again. Even then, it's a poor analogy since it's impossible for Peyton and Luck to play at the same time.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                FWIW, as far as what to do with the #1 pick:

                Keep in mind that the Patriot killing NY Giants are the team that traded UP to the #1 pick to grab their franchise QB. They wouldn't have won 2 of the last 4 SBs if they hadn't made that move.

                When you have a franchise QB, you have plenty of time to surround him with a competent supporting cast and defense. A true franchise QB's career goes 12-14 years and can span 2-3 different eras of supporting casts. There is plenty of time to build around that QB, provided you have a competent front office.

                Also keep in mind that the Redskins could have theoretically built a dynasty in 1999 after the Saints and Ditka gave them an entire draft's worth of picks (and then some) for the right to draft Ricky Williams. In fact, the Saints traded ALL their picks in the 99' draft AND their 1st and 3rd picks in 2000. With that move, the Redskins had all those picks in the 99' draft, then the #2 and #3 overall picks in the 2000 draft plus that extra 3rd round pick. But they never amounted to anything because they never found a QB.

                If you have a chance to get a highly regarded QB prospect who has the look of a true franchise guy, you have to roll with that. It's the best percentage play.
                Last edited by d_c; 02-06-2012, 03:59 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                  It doesn't sound like RG3 will be around at pick 4.

                  I don't watch enough college football to doubt the hype Luck has surrounding him. I just hope he is everything everybody says he is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                    Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                    If this team doesn't take this golden opportunity to build a great defense, they are foolish. Manning is an all time great, but he only netted one ring, mostly because the Colts defense was horrible. They have an opportunity to get there future QB and get 3 defensive starters that are first round quality.
                    It also didn't help when he threw a touchdown pass to Tracy Porter. Defense didn't have anything to do with Manning's own mistakes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                      Yup RGIII most likely will be the #2 pick, Peyton still has a long way to go, if u don't get Luck or RGIII and Peyton can't get back then you are screwed, there are always future years to take a QB, but there are two things that are risked with doing this. First, the guys in the future might not have as much potential, and also you take the risk of loosing a lot of fans.

                      It would be interesting though if the Colts did something very different, something that has not been talked about.

                      I am not really in favor of this, but what about making this trade and then signing a guy like Matt Flynn in free agency if Peyton is not healthy by that time and decides to not come back. Not the best situation that can happen, but may work.

                      Or if you are really determined that Peyton is coming back you could sign a good backup I guess and wait to see if Peytons nerves will regenerate...

                      I have no idea what will happen but I am excited to see.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        It doesn't sound like RG3 will be around at pick 4.

                        I don't watch enough college football to doubt the hype Luck has surrounding him. I just hope he is everything everybody says he is.
                        RG3 is a solid QB prospect but the major things that I have seen separate Qb's is not athleticism or a big arm... ITs the ability to think and adjust to what the defense is giving you at the last second. All of that comes from work put in on Monday to Saturday not on Sunday.

                        Luck clearly makes football his life much like Peyton does and thats why I think he's going to be great and the only things that worries me about him is his lack of velocity on some of his throws which can be corrected with work and I fully believe he will work on it if he sees that it will make him a much better QB at the pro level.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          RG3 is a solid QB prospect but the major things that I have seen separate Qb's is not athleticism or a big arm... ITs the ability to think and adjust to what the defense is giving you at the last second. All of that comes from work put in on Monday to Saturday not on Sunday.

                          Luck clearly makes football his life much like Peyton does and thats why I think he's going to be great and the only things that worries me about him is his lack of velocity on some of his throws which can be corrected with work and I fully believe he will work on it if he sees that it will make him a much better QB at the pro level.
                          Yeah, that is also one thing that I wonder about RGIII, how much focus will he have, he has said that he wants to compete in the summer Olympics, so he will really be putting a lot of his energy towards other ventures as well.

                          Also I think Luck has the arm strength but on many of his passes he does not need to force it in there. But like you said there will be times in the NFL when he will just have to fling it.
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                            My response to your thought process.

                            Please, quit thinking.

                            Other than that, please refer to Bulletproof's remarks.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I think the Colts need to trade the number 1 pick

                              We aren't trading the pick. It's just not going to happen. You don't trade number 1 picks when you have the chance to draft a QB phenom. We wouldn't have traded the 1998 pick (San Diego wanted Manning badly and would have given us a lot for it) and we aren't trading this one.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X