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

Luck vs. RG3

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

  • Re: Luck vs. RG3

    It's not a smart move... if an NFL team (especially one that holds the #1 pick in the draft) wants to visit with you, you friggin let them meet with you. What could it possibly hurt? What, is he too busy to insert a workout into his schedule to let the #1 picking team have a private look? What else is he doin?

    Doesn't make much sense to me at all. If there was a sliver of a chance of them picking him before, a move like that likely put an end to that. I know if I was a potential employer of someone and they flat-out denied a chance for me to meet with them privately, I'd automatically turn my attention almost 100% to the candidate that not only is stronger anyway, but actually obliged my interest in meeting with them.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-04-2012, 11:23 AM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • Re: Luck vs. RG3

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Wait, wait, wait, hold on here.... where's the need for comments like what I bolded??

      So we go through *one* bad year, and that means this franchise doesn't know how to run a winning operation??? Just throw away the preceeding decade of immense success and SB appearances/wins?

      What leg, as a 'Skin fan, are you standing on to be riding Colts fans about franchise success?

      I mean come on... ya, the 'Skins have a better situation *right now*, because we're *rebuilding*. This particular situation just dawned, for both teams. For the ten years before that, it wasn't even close, in terms of franchises producing results.

      Your new front office may be new, but they have a lot to prove, and the owner is still Snyder. We'll see how long he remains "stepping back".

      The 'Skins have made a series of questionable acquisitions over the years, and now you're claiming they've "changed their ways", and yet it would appear that they are exactly in the same path by signing Garcon to a stupid deal and then mortgaging some big-time future picks.

      Seriously now...
      Wow, panties in a bunch much?

      Guess the truth hurts.

      So we go through *one* bad year, and that means this franchise doesn't know how to run a winning operation???
      Show me where I said that and I will give you a check for $1,000. Though I could argue terrible mgt by your former GM, but since I didnt I wont bring that up

      What leg, as a 'Skin fan, are you standing on to be riding Colts fans about franchise success?
      The same leg that others have stood on to be riding Redskins fans for their franchise success?

      I mean come on... ya, the 'Skins have a better situation *right now*, because we're *rebuilding*. This particular situation just dawned, for both teams. For the ten years before that, it wasn't even close, in terms of franchises producing results.
      Ok, good for you. I never said otherwise.

      Your new front office may be new, but they have a lot to prove, and the owner is still Snyder. We'll see how long he remains "stepping back".
      Same can be sad for the Colts. We will see how the past Manning era goes

      The 'Skins have made a series of questionable acquisitions over the years, and now you're claiming they've "changed their ways", and yet it would appear that they are exactly in the same path by signing Garcon to a stupid deal and then mortgaging some big-time future picks.

      Seriously now...
      A deal that has been mis-reported by the media, and a trade for a future franchise QB. Yeah, TERRIBLE.

      BUt hey, at least we draft back up QB's so we dont make a serious run at going 0-16 after we lose our starting QB

      Seriously now

      Comment


      • Re: Luck vs. RG3

        Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
        Colts have been stable for 15 years. Washington hasnt. If this year starts off bad, it will be Washington making big changes again, not the Colts. And it was Washington who just gave a monster contract to a midling receiver like Garcon. No contest in terms of quality of organization.
        RG3 didnt want to waste his time because he already knows he is going to Washington. He cannot improve his position, he can only hurt it. Smart move by the kid if you as me.
        Yeah, big if.

        P.S. I will bet you a lot that even if we start off bad Shanny will not be going anywhere. Unless you mean big changes in terms or personel, which big shocker, happens to every NFL team when they need change.

        P.S. I am seriously tired of hearing about Garcon. Maybe he will work out. Maybe he wont. The reality is we need a number 1 wideout, and if the best we could get was a number 2 who we hope to fill the number 1 spot for a while, then so be it. Santana Moss and Brandon Banks just werent cutting it.

        What is funny is if he has a monster breakout year I am sure there will be all kinds of *****ing and moaning about how he was worth the money and how the Colts wish they had kept him. And that is assuming the Colts dont start off terrible with the whole rebuild.

        Agreed on the decision. He let his pro day stand for itself, which was probably the right move (and I assume his agent said the same thing you did)

        Comment


        • Re: Luck vs. RG3

          Wow. Alright, I know what I'm dealing with here now, lol.... movin' on.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • Re: Luck vs. RG3

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            It's not a smart move... if an NFL team (especially one that holds the #1 pick in the draft) wants to visit with you, you friggin let them meet with you. What could it possibly hurt? What, is he too busy to insert a workout into his schedule to let the #1 picking team have a private look? What else is he doin?

            Doesn't make much sense to me at all. If there was a sliver of a chance of them picking him before, a move like that likely put an end to that. I know if I was a potential employer of someone and they flat-out denied a chance for me to meet with them privately, I'd automatically turn my attention almost 100% to the candidate that not only is stronger anyway, but actually obliged my interest in meeting with them.
            Yeah, your right. He could have a totally terrible workout and all the stuff that would be "leaked" would 100% not hurt his draft stock. I am sure everyone would just overlook it.

            Not to mention I have heard it mentioned quite a few times that NFL teams like to use these kind of meetings to "show" new players the terminology they use and explain the system a bit* wink wink nudge nudge

            Comment


            • Re: Luck vs. RG3

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Wow. Alright, I know what I'm dealing with here now, lol.... movin' on.
              Sorry the truth hurts your feelings. In the future I will be sure to only post nice things about the Colts and pretend like last year never happened.


              Moving on here as well.

              Comment


              • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                Not to mention I have heard it mentioned quite a few times that NFL teams like to use these kind of meetings to "show" new players the terminology they use and explain the system a bit* wink wink nudge nudge
                EXACTLY. So why not show up?
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  EXACTLY. So why not show up?
                  Because he knows it is pointless and the Colts have wink wink nudge nudge told his agent as much.

                  Who knows, maybe I am wrong and he is arrogant and think it is beneth him, but IMO there is more to this story and this is all the PR games that come with this type of event

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                    Well, anyway... good Luck with RG3.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                      One last thing.

                      I have always been a closet Colts fan, partly because of Manning.

                      What is funny is while I can completely agree the Redskisn have been on a downward slope for quite some time, the Colts had management (and some bad luck) that literally only got one of the best QB's I have ever seen play (maybe the best?) one ring, and a shot at two.

                      Is it great to have regular season success? Yup. Would I die to have the same success the Colts did? Yup

                      But IMO the Colts could have (and some could prob argue should have) won more with such a great QB. Not sure if the blame goes on coaching, front office, etc.

                      Here to the NFL draft (which I will be out of the country for, thank the lord for the internet)

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        Yeah, big if.

                        P.S. I will bet you a lot that even if we start off bad Shanny will not be going anywhere. Unless you mean big changes in terms or personel, which big shocker, happens to every NFL team when they need change.

                        P.S. I am seriously tired of hearing about Garcon. Maybe he will work out. Maybe he wont. The reality is we need a number 1 wideout, and if the best we could get was a number 2 who we hope to fill the number 1 spot for a while, then so be it. Santana Moss and Brandon Banks just werent cutting it.

                        What is funny is if he has a monster breakout year I am sure there will be all kinds of *****ing and moaning about how he was worth the money and how the Colts wish they had kept him. And that is assuming the Colts dont start off terrible with the whole rebuild.

                        Agreed on the decision. He let his pro day stand for itself, which was probably the right move (and I assume his agent said the same thing you did)
                        They gave a stat on Garcon that really bothered me. He racked up like 80% of his yardage in garbage time. This is not a legite #1 or #2 receiver. When all were healthy, he was our #4 behind, Wayne, Collie, and Clark. He does have downfield speed for sure, but drops a lot of passes. I guarantee before half way thru the season you will be pulling your hair out (and being wowed at times too).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                          One last thing.

                          I have always been a closet Colts fan, partly because of Manning.

                          What is funny is while I can completely agree the Redskisn have been on a downward slope for quite some time, the Colts had management (and some bad luck) that literally only got one of the best QB's I have ever seen play (maybe the best?) one ring, and a shot at two.

                          Is it great to have regular season success? Yup. Would I die to have the same success the Colts did? Yup

                          But IMO the Colts could have (and some could prob argue should have) won more with such a great QB. Not sure if the blame goes on coaching, front office, etc.

                          Here to the NFL draft (which I will be out of the country for, thank the lord for the internet)
                          Peyton Manning may go down as the greatest regular season QB of all time. No joke there.
                          Peyton Manning is a very average QB come playoff time when he faced the better defenses and smarter DQ's.
                          So, Peyton Manning gets the most credit in regards to the regular season success of the Colts over the last 14 years. He should share largely in the blame for their lack of post season success. But that is not popular even though it is undeniable.

                          Edit: Peyton Manning IS the greatest regular season QB in NFL history.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                            BUt hey, at least we draft back up QB's so we dont make a serious run at going 0-16 after we lose our starting QB
                            LOL. And sign really crappy ones... Rex Grossman...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                              Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                              LOL. And sign really crappy ones... Rex Grossman...
                              I can only hope for another 13 year run with 11 seasons of 10+ wins, 2 SB appearances and a World Championship. I will gladly accept a 2-14 season after that instead of a decade or two of poor coaching decisions, bad drafts, and ridiculous FA signings. Cannot compare Washington to Indy. Nor Snyder to Irsay. Indy is far superior in all facets and we will have by far and way a better QB too.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                                Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                                LOL. And sign really crappy ones... Rex Grossman...

                                He is actually a decent back-up, but nothing more. The fact he was ever our starter speak volumes

                                Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                                we will have by far and way a better QB too.

                                Right now? Sure

                                After the draft? I dont think his is "way better" by any means, but time will tell

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X