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

Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

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

  • Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...learned-sunday

    "Everywhere I go in Indianapolis, I hear someone say that the Alex Smith-to-Kansas City Chiefs deal is all but done. (Now CBS is reporting a deal is "effectively done" for Smith, but won't name the team.) Jacksonville Jaguars general manager Dave Caldwell said it's "not us" who has a deal in place in a text to the Florida Times-Union. NFL.com's Albert Breer reported a high-ranking San Francisco 49ers source says he's not aware of a deal being done. NFL.com's Ian Rapoport says the Chiefs have showed the most interest. Mr. RapSheet also hears the Chiefs are particularly high on tackle Luke Joeckel as a No. 1 overall pick candidate."

    Trades can be made until the league season officially opens on March 12

    http://www.profootballcentral.com/20...ed-alex-smith/

    "Kansas City Chiefs have agreed in principle to acquire 49ers QB Alex Smith as I have been reporting all week."

    other supporting tweets:
    https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/s...12341730189312
    https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/s...12786989113344
    https://twitter.com/PFCentral/status/305830393871994881


    makes sense & Andy Reid could probably get the most out of him. The price is unclear, but pick #63 (top of 3rd round) plus perhaps a conditional pick based on performance doesn't seem out of line
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-28-2013, 09:59 AM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

    Hmmm win win for both sides? Possibly, although I don't think the 49ers are gonna get back the first pick of the 3rd round. I mean for what we know or guess for that matter, the 49ers will cut Smith if they can't find a trade for him and then the Chiefs will be able to take him without giving up anything. We'll see.
    Never forget

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

      alex smith is a game manager, but this draft doesnt have any franchise type of QB's like Luck in it, so i guess they are better off by drafting geno smith and let him sit for a few years behind a decent vet

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

        looks like a great deal for San Fran- a second rounder, plus another midrounder next year based on performance by Smith

        http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/89...-chiefs-source
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

          Cheifs are fools for making this trade, like was said before smith is a game manager, nothing more, and when under pressure last year he ended up doing worst than Blain Gabbert, this was a horrible trade no matter how you look at it, and to give up basically a 1st was a big waste.

          http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2013/1/...blaine-gabbert

          pressure can be defined differently, in this case we are considering smiths throwaways as incompletions,

          https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...nder-pressure/

          this case we are just talking about the passes he attempted.

          This from earlier in the season is even worst and shows Cassel put up better stats on 3rd downs than Smith in various categories

          http://www.coltsauthority.com/2012-a...-magician.html


          I don't think KC did their HW, I think they saw a guy with a good record, saw the lack of top passes in the draft and made a silly decision in my view.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

            so what does KC do? They can't take a qb with the first pick. It would be a horrible move to do that. Alex Smith is a solid starting QB in this league. He will win you games. And he wont really lose you games. He will bring stability to a Chiefs team that badly needs it. Reid will know how to use him the right way.

            Chiefs need a QB now. None are in the draft. They are all projects.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

              Few points:

              1) Such a fool for believing that if Kansas gave up their 3rd round pick they would be sort of robbed. They gave up their second round pick which is even worse and now the 49ers have the 31st and 34th pick in the upcoming draft.

              2) Does that trade make Kansas relevant again? Especially if they sustain Bowe? Smith may not be elite but I am sure he will be much better than Quinn or Cassel for example and their receivers will feel much more confident with him on the helm of this team. Let's not forget they have also got a very good RB in Jamaal Charles. Plus Andy Reid, I believe will have a positive impact on this team's offense.

              3) How the hell SF ended up with 15 picks in this draft? Through other trades too that happened last year or in the previous ones? Anyway, that's a hell of a deal for them and will make them even stronger. That's hypothetical of course cause you never know how the picks will turn out but the odds are with them.
              Never forget

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

                I'm still skeptical about Smith. He's lost his job to the likes of J.T. O'Sullivan and Shaun Hill. I think he looked good the past couple of years in San Fran because of great coaching and game planning. Don't forget that Matt Cassel also looked really good when he was surrounded with great coaching and teammates in New England. We all saw how his stint in KC worked out. But in Smith's defense, he did have a revolving door of offensive coordinators at the beginning of his career. That's not easy for a young QB to deal with.

                But wow, what a great deal for San Francisco. They have five picks in the top 100. A team that is already stockpiled with young talent is only going to get tougher. They will be a monster for years.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Alex Smith trade "effectively is done" and probably it's the Chiefs, for a high 3rd rounder

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  so what does KC do? They can't take a qb with the first pick. It would be a horrible move to do that. Alex Smith is a solid starting QB in this league. He will win you games. And he wont really lose you games. He will bring stability to a Chiefs team that badly needs it. Reid will know how to use him the right way.

                  Chiefs need a QB now. None are in the draft. They are all projects.
                  You are fooling yourself, the data is right below.... He won't win you games but you are right he won't lose you games in a sense, even though he does not throw interceptions, he is horrible under pressure, and had the highest sack rate under pressure of any QB in the NFL, I say blitz him on 3rd downs and take your chances.

                  Also I think the only reason he was stable in SF was because he was not asked to do much, you have a top 5 defense, a top running game, and the top line in football, if you lose there then there is a big problem.

                  As far as QB, I agree it is hard taking a QB #1 overall in this draft, but with the 1st pick of the 2nd they could have got everything that Smith brings besides experience, and they are a team that is building, they have time to wait for a QB to develop, and really it would have been cheaper to get a vet and let the youngster learn for a year than to go grab Alex Smith, it was just a bad move all together.
                  Why so SERIOUS

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

                    I do not understand why this makes sense for the Chiefs. Alex is not know for his arm, being able to handle a large volumes of passes and the 49ers tended to have more success the less he threw the ball. I do not see how that fits well in an Andy Reid offense that wants to pass, pass, and then pass some more while ignoring his top 5 RB.

                    I mean the Eagles had McCoy who is a beast and Andy went out of his way to not use him last season.

                    Good move by the 49ers though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

                      Smith will win you games. Did you see the Saints/49ers game in the playoffs 2 years ago? He was phenomenal. And sometimes taking a sack is a good play. Do I think he is going to lead the league in qb rating again next year? No of course not. But he's going to be good for KC.

                      In the NFL there is never time to wait. So they draft a QB on day 2. What do they do for 2-3 years? Reid will lose his job by then.

                      Reid knows what he is doing. He's excellent in the draft and he's excellent with QBs.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

                        Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                        Smith will win you games. Did you see the Saints/49ers game in the playoffs 2 years ago? He was phenomenal. And sometimes taking a sack is a good play. Do I think he is going to lead the league in qb rating again next year? No of course not. But he's going to be good for KC.

                        In the NFL there is never time to wait. So they draft a QB on day 2. What do they do for 2-3 years? Reid will lose his job by then.

                        Reid knows what he is doing. He's excellent in the draft and he's excellent with QBs.
                        Smith looks good when he is surrounded with Super Bowl quality teammates and an excellent coaching staff. Reid is a good coach and KC actually had a lot of pro bowlers last year, but they aren't on an SF talent level. I'm just having flashbacks of Matt Cassel. He looked pretty damn solid in New England becuase he was surrounded by great teammates and an excellent coaching staff that refused to lose. Then we all saw how he looked at K.C. Has any other QB in the NFL lost their starting job as much as Alex Smith? I think he's a QB who might not lose you games if he has an excellent team around him, but I'm not convinced that he can actually go out and win you games consistently with average talent.

                        But the Colts, Vikings, and Redskins showed that a rapid turnaround is always possible in the NFL. It's a game of inches, so great coaching and playmakers can win you games. It will be interesting to see how this turns out for the Chiefs. Aside from Denver, they do play in a fairly weak division.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

                          Pats' division ain't that hard too.
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            Smith will win you games. Did you see the Saints/49ers game in the playoffs 2 years ago? He was phenomenal. And sometimes taking a sack is a good play. Do I think he is going to lead the league in qb rating again next year? No of course not. But he's going to be good for KC.

                            In the NFL there is never time to wait. So they draft a QB on day 2. What do they do for 2-3 years? Reid will lose his job by then.

                            Reid knows what he is doing. He's excellent in the draft and he's excellent with QBs.
                            There have been QB's taken outside of the first that have turned out to be steals, another thing I said was that I don't feel Smith really offers a bunch and you could get the majority of what he has in the 2nd. As far as a QB, the best thing to do is solidify your line, because if you don't it will be hard for anyone to succeed, and I think this is the reason they will go line with the #1 pick.

                            Also everyone has good games when they are in rhythm, but unless they do it consistently it does not really matter.
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Alex Smith traded to the Chiefs (edited), for a high 2nd rounder + more

                              Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                              Pats' division ain't that hard too.
                              Neither is KC's, only team dominating is Broncos, SD sucks, Oakland really sucks.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X