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

2014 NFL offseason thread

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

  • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Okay.
    your usual Colts can do no wrong input

    Comment


    • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      I think Grigson's awful, to be frank and to get it on record. I hope he's not controlling our roster leading up to the next draft. Honeymoon's long over.
      I don't know how I feel about Grigson any more. I really liked him that first year, but I wasn't crazy about last years draft or some of the offseason free agents. Then the Richardson trade came. The one good thing I'm seeing is that he talks a lot about planning for the future (Luck's next contract). I think it would require the Colts to miss the playoffs for Grigs to be gone.

      Comment


      • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

        I don't know about awful but he's rather green as a GM which I think in a lot of ways is to be expected.

        I agree the honeymoon is over but really if you dump him who are you going to replace him with?

        I mean the only way that can be justified is if there's a repeat of the 2011 season but with back to back 11-5 seasons good look getting rid of a GM based on that.

        Comment


        • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          I don't know about awful but he's rather green as a GM which I think in a lot of ways is to be expected.

          I agree the honeymoon is over but really if you dump him who are you going to replace him with?

          I mean the only way that can be justified is if there's a repeat of the 2011 season but with back to back 11-5 seasons good look getting rid of a GM based on that.
          Yeah I think Grigs has done a pretty decent job. He was fortunate to start with Luck, but there was a lot on this roster that needed fixing when he took over in 2012. We would have definitely been better than 11-5 last year if our offense wouldn't have been so nuked with injuries.

          Comment


          • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
            your usual Colts can do no wrong input
            Just responding to your usual Colts suck input.
            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: 2014 NFL offseason thread

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              I think Grigson's awful, to be frank and to get it on record. I hope he's not controlling our roster leading up to the next draft. Honeymoon's long over.
              Awful?
              Thats pretty extreme. I could get someone calling him a mediocre GM but by in large when compared to other gms he is not awful given his limited track record but I have a feeling if the Colts win a Super Bowl with him that many people will claim it was done inspite of his efforts. That to me is a slippery slope.

              Comment


              • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                Herm's Super Bowl prediction:

                Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Pittsburgh Steelers

                Even as a Bucs fan I think he's high as hell.

                Comment


                • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                  I actually did pick the Steelers to come out of the AFC myself but the Lions will be the NFC champ

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                    People criticizing Grigson already baffle me. His first draft was absolutely phenomenal. We made the playoffs despite most people predicting 6 wins. His second draft definitely lacked that kind of juice, but when you look at it objectively, it was still far from a failure. He was picking at the bottom of each round vs. the too of each round in 2012, so to compare those two drafts is unfair.

                    I also think people mis understood his goals in free agency in 2012 and 2013.

                    In 2012 he had very little money to work with. He signed guys like McGlynn and Satele just to buy himself a year or two. He also resigned Reggie and Mathis which were brilliant moves, almost everyone expected both of those guys to be gone. He also brought in Cory Redding which was a great signing.

                    In 2013 he brought in Erik Walden as a stop gap, and drafted Werner to groom behind him. He didn't want a top level pass rushing OLB because he wanted to draft one to compliment an aging Mathis. He brought in RJF to be a cog in a rotation, not a cornerstone player. He brought in Heyward Bey to buy himself some time, and same with Greg Toler. I thought Donald Thomas was a great signing, he just got hurt. The only signing I've hated for the money he spent was Landry, I personally think he's always been severely over rated. But I understood the move, we needed a safety especially with Bethea in the final year of his deal and Landry was one of the best available. All in all I think he made solid moves without doling out any huge signing bonuses that will hinder us in the future.

                    This year I think was the first year he really had any real flexibility to make something happen and I think he did a very good job filling out the roster. People are gonna be pleasantly surprised by Arthur Jones. And Dqwell Jackson is a great fit here. Hakeem Nicks was a steal at his salary and I also like him bringing back Ahmad Bradshaw.

                    The draft this year I personally loved. I like that he didn't force a pick at safety, and picked up Mewhort who looks solid and a good fit. All the good safeties were long gone by the time our pick came around and he could've reached but instead landed a versatile lineman and a stud receiver prospect in Moncrief. Our receivers are gonna be as talented as I can remember, and deep. I also liked the Newsome pick, he is a sleeper. Andrew a Jackson is another sleeper who I think is gonna develop into a real nice true MLB like we haven't seen since Jeff Herrod. Not sure about John, but he looks like a project.

                    Now this brings me to his biggest criticism which is the trade for Trent. People are really sleeping on this kid and while I agree his YPC is far from impressive, the thing people ignore most with him is how good he is at everything else.

                    1. He is outstanding in short yardage situations. This has been a major weakness of ours for a long time.

                    2. He is excellent catching the ball out of the backfield. Providing a safety valve for our young QB is very important.

                    3. He is an excellent pass protector. Providing protection for Andrew is crucial.

                    I believe his YPC will get to the coveted 4.0 people seem to focus on and once it does, then you have a complete back who can do all the little things as good as anybody. And Im telling you, once Trent gets to the second level he is as dangerous as anybody. Defensive backs want no part of tackling him because he is a load.

                    Grigs has done some really nice things and Im not even hyping his moves acquiring Jerrell Freeman, Darius Butler, Josh Gordy, Delano Howell, Sergio Brown (our best special teamer) and Josh McNary. I also like his project players Daniel Adongo and Erik Swoope.

                    Give the man some time.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                      Grigson getting criticized now (already) tells you how big of a bust TRich turned out to be (considering what most thought of Grigson's first season). If we hadn't made that trade he'd be looked on fairly positively likely. But rarely does one move trash you completely so we'll see what comes next. The biggest help for Grigson would be if TRich can come back and be actually useful. ...Or Grigson can somehow make chicken salad out of chicken
                      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: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                        I am still holding out hope that TRich just wasn't used to the system at first and that the continued failure when it was just a system problem led to him losing confidence.
                        TRich definitely has tons and tons of potential, he is an absolute monster.
                        #LanceEffect

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          But rarely does one move trash you completely so we'll see what comes next.
                          Nor should it. Silly fans, really. They are the ones who label someone a bust after 13 games, as if said player has no chance at all of returning to form. They also label a GM a bust after one perceived "bad move".
                          Pretty silly, right?

                          How about we look at it in a realistic view --- TRich can still be effective, and Grigson might be just fine.
                          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: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                            Nothing would make me happier than to see T-Rich have a strong season. Even if we can run the ball by committee and T-Rich is an effective component of that I'll be thrilled. My biggest worries about this team is safety position and o-line. If Donald Thomas can bounce back and Holmes works out as center I think the line will be much improved. I don't love Landry as a starting safety, especially teamed up with a young Delano Howell. If Howell can have a breakout season I think they can be formidable, but I could also see that being the weakest part of the entire team. Depth at safety is also a concern.

                            Theres always question marks going into camp, but watching those areas is going to make the preseason games interesting.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                              Well now that the Pacers are done, at least we have another star in Andrew Luck to look forward to watching!

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                                Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
                                I am still holding out hope that TRich just wasn't used to the system at first and that the continued failure when it was just a system problem led to him losing confidence.
                                TRich definitely has tons and tons of potential, he is an absolute monster.
                                I don't even think its him. The colts always fail at running the ball no matter who it is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X