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

Receivers 2014

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

  • Receivers 2014

    This was brought up in Mike's Mailbag a few days ago:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis...espnapi_public



    Lewis
    @Blessed_2bless


    @MikeWellsNFL if the Colts sing Nicks or any other receiver where does that leave talents like Rodgers, Whalen and Brazill?
    Mar. 15, 2014
    • Reply
    • Retweet
    • Favorite





    Wells: One of them may not end up making the roster depending on how many receivers the Colts keep. Nicks, Reggie Wayne and T.Y. Hilton are the top three receivers. The Colts like Da’Rick Rogers’ potential. So that likely leaves Griff Whalen and LaVon Brazill battling it out for the fifth and final receiver spot on the roster.


    Interesting thought. I almost hate to see any of these guys go. I like them all. That said, it seems to me that Rogers has probably the most physical talent, and yet the most question marks, and thus far, the least production of the three. If you take away his huge 1-game explosion against Cincy, he's done almost nothing so far. I have a soft spot for Whalen as the Little Engine That Could. He wasn't "supposed to make it in the NFL" and yet here he is, and he seems to have improved a lot, and also gotten a lot bigger. He's proven to be a good mid-range option with good hands. Brazill to me seems to be somewhere in between Rogers and Whalen, being a little more athletic than Whalen, and good hands, consistent production.

    Is there any way we can keep all three? lol... I don't want to cut any of them. My biggest fear is we let one of these guys go, and then one or two of Hilton/Wayne/Nicks suffer injuries and we're regretting it big-time. I guess if it came down to it, Brazill would be the odd man out for me, but man is it close.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

  • #2
    Re: Receivers 2014

    I assume you can still place someone on the practice squad after the season starts? Seems Griff keeps spending time there until needed.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Receivers 2014

      I'm really hoping one of them really steps up during the preseason. The problem is that they all need in-game reps with Luck to get better, and that's going to be hard if the big three stay healthy and both TE's are healthy too. Right now it's a good problem to have after last season. I wonder if Reggie will share reps early in the season to help him work his way back? I think Rogers would be best in that scenario.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Receivers 2014

        I think all three stay unless one gets beat out by a guy that is not yet on the roster, Nicks is on a one year deal, and honestly him and Wayne could be gone after this season. Add to the idea that we don't know how long it will take Wayne to get back up to full speed I assume all make the active Roster. Oh I should add that Allen is coming back from injury, so he may not seek as much time starting out either.

        Not really too worried about this situations, even if one gets cuts there will be other Brazils or Whalens out there in the future.

        Can't get attached too much to dispensable players...
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Receivers 2014

          Griff would spend about 30 seconds on the Colts practice squad before being signed by another team.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Receivers 2014

            Originally posted by travmil View Post
            Griff would spend about 30 seconds on the Colts practice squad before being signed by another team.
            Liar
            Why so SERIOUS

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Receivers 2014

              I think Whalen's eligibility on the PS might be in jeopardy, due to playing time but I don't know for sure...
              Edit Signature

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Receivers 2014

                Originally posted by Natston View Post
                I think Whalen's eligibility on the PS might be in jeopardy, due to playing time but I don't know for sure...
                It is he can no longer be on the PS Squad

                of the three i think griffer is the most likely to be cut.
                Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Receivers 2014

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Liar
                  Not sure why this is necessary...you don't believe it fine. No need for you to state it like this.

                  For my part, Griff had a better or on par season with more than a few "name" wide receivers. I think some team would pick him up if given the chance.
                  Last edited by travmil; 03-18-2014, 06:58 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Receivers 2014

                    Whalen played better than Brazill last year, but that was last year. All 3 have talent, but it depends on which one fits better in system. I don't want to let any of them go, but that's the business of the NFL
                    Smothered Chicken!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Receivers 2014

                      There's no doubt we have some toys for Mr. Luck now. I was impressed the way Pep finally adjusted last season. I think it's mostly on him to figure out ways to maximize the talent we have. I also want to see if we can involve TRich in the passing game more too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Receivers 2014

                        Originally posted by travmil View Post
                        Not sure why this is necessary...you don't believe it fine. No need for you to state it like this.

                        For my part, Griff had a better or on par season with more than a few "name" wide receivers. I think some team would pick him up if given the chance.
                        Lol, sorry Travmil it was a joke
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Receivers 2014

                          Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                          Whalen played better than Brazill last year, but that was last year. All 3 have talent, but it depends on which one fits better in system. I don't want to let any of them go, but that's the business of the NFL
                          Whalen got more opportunity mostly out of comfort with Luck and a terrible OL.


                          Out of everyone I would prefer Rogers to get cut. He supposedly has potential, but I don't think it is any greater than Brazill's and as of the end of the season Brazill is better right now. Whalen looks like he will carve out a nice career as a slot receiver, so I would like to keep him too. Hopefully all of them will be on the roster this year. I think even without Nicks or a healthy Wayne we would have had a good receiving core, all we really needed to see them excel was a halfway decent OL. As of right now it seems our improvement will be minimal at best.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Receivers 2014

                            I favor Rogers over Brazill for a couple of reasons. Rogers is our tallest receiver at 6'3". That's 4" taller than Brazill. He also has one less year experience so there's more room for growth.

                            Also Brazill already has 2 strikes against him for illegal substances. That cost him 4 games last year. He's one mistake away from being unavailable for a significant number of games.

                            Whalen seems like a potentially good possession receiver.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Receivers 2014

                              If it came down to Rogers or Whalen I'd have to say we would benefit the best by letting Whalen go. With Nicks here and Reggie coming back along with TY I don't see much playing time for him and Rogers excels better on special teams along with Brazill. A lot might disagree but I think we have a pretty well stocked WR core.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X