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.
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
-
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
I don't feel good about them agreeing on a deal. I hope that this is an isolated incident.
"Do I need to help you read a revenue chart son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you know how to read that?’”
If this is in fact what Richardson said...wow. Most people are not going to respond well to that. Granted I don't know what Peyton said to trigger Richardson's response but you just don't go about making your points like this IMO. -
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
The Panthers owner needs to fire some people in that organization, whoever think their 1990's color scheme is still cool needs a massive reality check. Whenever I watch the play I feel like Big Country Reeves is going to line up as an LB in his Vancouver Grizzlies jersey.
And **** their fat stupid owner. Their stadium sucks and so does their team. They've been a franchise since what, last week, why should they have the same bargaining power as everyone else?
Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
My immediate reaction would have been .... "You need me to play QB for your pathetic team much more than I need your help to read this chart".
That was the very first thought that popped into my head.Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
I wonder when the Colts play the Panthers ?????Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
I don't know, but you know Peyton's gonna remember that.Originally posted by PacerDude View PostComment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
If there is a season in 2011 it will be here at LOS(unless our game is sent to London)Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
I keep reading how Richardson is one of the leading owners behind all of this I just cannot wrap my head around guys like Irsay or Kraft letting this loud mouth be at the front of negotiations.
If this is the type of attitude the owners are projecting towards the players no wonder things have broken down all ready.
I just do not see what the big deal is for the owners to open up their books. If they are supposedly losing as much as they say then it should be easy to show. You cannot look at anyone in any business and say we want you to give back a substantial amount of money and not expect them to ask why.
God I hope there is a season so Peyton and company can destroy the that pathetic franchise.
Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
Owners could be playing good cop bad cop with obviously Richardson playing the bad guy. Taking the hard line stance so they can pretend they soften and give something back as things progress.
I will say insulting Manning and Brees is probably not the right strategy. Manning likes to pretend the good ole shucks boy, but not even close to how he can read/see things.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
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
This was brought up in another board I frequent but is it possible Richardson resents Manning for telling Andrew Luck to not enter the draft where he would've been the #1 overall pick and play for the Panthers.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ng-drew-brees/
More details emerge on Jerry Richardson’s interaction with Peyton Manning
Posted by Mike Florio on February 14, 2011, 7:11 AM EST
Cardinals kicker Jay Feely explained last week in an interview on ESPN 1050′s The Michael Kay Show that Panthers owner Jerry Richardson spoke to Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Saints quarterback Drew Brees in a condescending manner during the bargaining session that occurred the day before the Super Bowl. Feely, who didn’t attend the meeting, had his account of Richardson’s condescension corroborated Sunday night by Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports, via three unnamed sources.
“[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton,” an unnamed source told Cole. “[Richardson] was the only person on either side who was contentious. Everybody else was respectful. They might have said, ‘I disagree with your point,’ but at least they were respectful. [Richardson] was not.”
For example, when Manning was talking about player safety, Richardson reportedly said, “What do you know about player safety?”
A management source denied that Richardson disrespected Manning. “Mr. Richardson is a former player and made clear his respect and affection for the players during the meeting,” the source told Cole.
The truth perhaps lies somewhere in the middle, and it would be helpful if Manning or Richardson would go on the record and share their versions of the events. Richardson wasn’t available to be interviewed by Cole; there’s no indication that Cole attempted to talk to Manning.
Either way, it’ll be interesting to see what happens when Manning’s Colts face Richardson’s Panthers during the 2011 season, if that or any of the other 255 games are even played.
Richardson widely is believed to be intent on driving a hard bargain with the players. He reportedly said during the March 2010 ownership meetings that it’s time to “take back our league.”
“We signed a [expletive] deal last time and we’re going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it,” Richardson said, per Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports, via Cole.
In other words (possibly, and we need to be clear Richardson didn’t say this but we’re surmising as to what he’s truly feeling), “When I was a player we got the short end of the stick and I’ll be damned if I continue to get the short end of the stick as an owner.”
The easy solution would be to drop Richardson from the negotiating team, if indeed he treated Manning, Brees, or anyone poorly. Given that Richardson co-chaired the committee that selected Roger Goodell as Commissioner in August 2006, that could be a lot easier said than done.
The fact that the situation has gone public will make it even harder for the NFL to yank Richardson away from the table, for the same reasons that the union has been reluctant to ditch divisive attorney Jeffrey Kessler. Neither side wants to capitulate to the other side on anything, which means that the tip of the knife will continue to pierce the flesh of the neck of the golden goose until the grown-ups in the room take over.
If there are any.Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
I see an owner who needs to be smacked....."Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel
"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
Manning completed his bachelor's degree in three years. He majored in communications and minored in business, and carried a 3.6 GPA. His initial rookie contract was for 6 years and $48 million. His second contract which just ended, was 7 years and 98 million. 13 years, 146 million. By the time his career is over, through some combination of a new contract or playing under the franchise tag, the Colts will have paid him in the neoghborhood of $250 million. This is in addition to his endorsements, which we all know with Peyton being one of the most marketable athletes in sports history, is quite a bit more money than his playing salary. You add those two numbers up, and Peyton has to be coming in somewhere between $500 million and a cool billion. And somehow I doubt that Peyton is a guy who doesn't know where his money is or who has their hands in it, meaning that he's watching it, knows what he's doing with it, and has a plan. And this jackass owner sits across a table and speaks condescendingly to one of the very few athletes in the world who can approach his net worth and tells him he can't read a revenue sheet? It's nice to know that intelligence isn't required to be an NFL owner. There is hope for us all.Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...fl021411%C2%A0
Time to bench Richardson from bargaining game
By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports
14 hours, 57 minutes ago
tweet0EmailPrint
I have a Valentine’s Day message for Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, and I’m not quite sure how to deliver it while honoring the spirit of the holiday. Then again, as my colleague Jason Cole reported Sunday, Richardson could probably use some lessons on comportment and politesse, so I’m going to go ahead and spit it out bluntly.
More From Michael SilverUnassuming McCarthy pushes right buttons Feb 7, 2011 Rodgers overcame Favre fiasco by winning Feb 4, 2011 AdChoices
Hey, Grumpy Grumplestein – why the long face? And is there any way we can get you to step away from the increasingly rancorous negotiating sessions between the owners and the NFL Players Association in the hope of getting a deal done sometime this calendar year?
Richardson, as Cole reported, copped a condescending attitude toward star quarterbacks Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) in a Feb. 5 bargaining session in Dallas – the day before Super Bowl XLV. I’ve since spoken with two people who witnessed the interaction and gotten a more detailed report of what went down.
Among other things, Richardson became so angry at Sean Morey(notes) after the recently retired player cited a slew of statistics on player safety and average career length that the Panthers’ owner snapped, “You guys made so much [expletive] money – if you played three years in the NFL, you should own your own [expletive] team.”
At that point, as NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and several of Richardson’s fellow owners cringed, league representatives suggested that the two sides take a break.
“It was bad from the start,” said one player who attended the session. “[Richardson] opened the meeting by describing how he was almost annoyed how we would ask for that meeting on their busiest weekend of the year. And I’m thinking, ‘Your team finished 2-14. You shouldn’t be that busy. Why are you worrying about how busy you are during Super Bowl weekend?’ ”
If it seems like I’m being harsh toward Richardson, a former NFL player who parlayed his brief stint with the Baltimore Colts into buying a Hardee’s franchise and ultimately got rich via his Spartan Foods restaurant empire, let’s put this in perspective. I have consistently rated him near the top of my annual NFL owner rankings, and I admire his business sense, work ethic and aggressive attempts to increase revenue. I’m also thrilled that the 74-year-old Richardson got a new lease on life a little more than two years ago when, unexpectedly, he received a heart transplant that reversed a seemingly dire condition.
What I can’t understand is why a man who should be so happy to be among us would resist the compulsion to behave like Jimmy Stewart at the climax of “It’s A Wonderful Life” and instead act like the salty neighbor who screams at kids for allowing their football to bounce upon his lawn.
Or, to put it another way: If your heart were rapidly failing and you suddenly were granted a chance to return to health, would you a) go to work in your pajamas, hand hundred-dollar bills to strangers and dole out random hugs to supermarket clerks, or b) fire your sons and talk smack to two of the NFL’s most popular and accomplished players?
The current dispute between the owners and players is a complicated matter, and tempers sometimes flare in negotiating sessions. As I told you back in September, Richardson has been an impassioned advocate to his fellow owners about the need to secure a more favorable collective bargaining agreement than the one he helped railroad through in 2006, and I’m sure he feels passionately about his position.
But at this point Richardson’s role as the co-chair of the league’s negotiating committee has become an impediment to potential labor peace, which means one of two things: Either the owners have no intention of trying to strike a deal before the March 4 expiration of the current CBA and are hell-bent on a lockout (or, possibly, claiming an impasse in negotiations and imposing the terms of a “last, best offer” while daring the players to strike) or Richardson needs to go.
As one perennial Pro Bowl player told me Monday morning, “When the owners want to get serious, they just need to get him out of the room – because we’ll never get a deal done with him in there. It’s not professional, and it’s not good business.”
If nothing else, it would behoove the owners to encourage Richardson to take a leave of absence for the next several bargaining sessions, if and when they occur, because he’s not helping their cause. By antagonizing Manning, a superstar who has no formal union role and might be among those best served by remaining low-key during a potential work stoppage, Richardson may have done the NFLPA an incredible service. His behavior was more than a public-relations nightmare; it may have unleashed the wrath of one of the sports world’s most exacting and powerful leaders.
Let’s think about this for a minute: Manning and Brees are among the best in the world at what they do, and their success is built upon preparation, work ethic, drive and intensity. Richardson, for all his financial accomplishments in the food-services industry, is currently the worst at what he does – at least according to last season’s NFL standings.
Yet when Manning had the temerity to challenge the owners’ insistence upon taking another $1 billion annually off the top before splitting up revenues, Richardson treated the Colts’ quarterback like a dimwitted child. After Manning questioned the financial urgency of the owners’ request in the absence of documentation – a common union refrain – Richardson became agitated and dismissive while lecturing the player about the risks that their employers assume.
“He was condescending to Peyton,” said one player who was at the meeting. “He tried to talk about P&L [profit and loss] statements and all these other risks that the owners assume, as if Peyton didn’t know anything. Drew interrupted and said, ‘All we’re doing is just asking you to show us your books. We want to negotiate in good faith.’”
Said another player who was present: “We were so pissed. Peyton was breathing heavily, and some of us were about ready to jump across the table.”
Manning kept his cool, and Morey, the former Arizona Cardinals special teams standout who has been among the leading proponents of the need for the NFL’s increased attention to head trauma issues, began challenging Richardson by citing health and safety concerns as an example of the risks players assumed.
As Richardson gave his salty reply, witnesses said, other owners and Goodell became visibly uncomfortable, and someone suggested that the two sides take a break. Shortly thereafter, several owners (including the Patriots’ Robert Kraft, the Giants’ John Mara and the Chiefs’ Clark Hunt) apologized to the players who were present, assuring them that they respect the union’s position. Richardson, said one player, apologized to Manning for having lost his cool.
If Richardson’s short temper was the only issue at hand, this wouldn’t be a big deal. The problem is that his attitude is emblematic of something the players consider far more troubling – a disrespectful and hostile attempt to force an employer-friendly deal down their throats and to show them, beyond a reasonable doubt, who’s boss.
I’ll be examining the intricacies of the labor stare down in the weeks (and, I fear, months) to come, and for now I’ll spare you many of my thoughts pertaining to this financial fight between very well-off employees and extremely rich owners. I understand that most fans aren’t especially interested in taking sides – they just want the players and owners to reach an agreement and get back to the business of playing football, as quickly as possible.
However, those who cast this dispute as a skirmish between two factions that deserve an equal share of the blame are delusional. The players aren’t forcing this issue – they’ve publicly stated a willingness to continue to play under the terms of the soon-to-be expiring CBA, and I believe that they don’t want a work stoppage.
The owners, conversely, are behaving in a way that suggests they’re prepared to lock out the players unless a deal is reached in the next two-and-a-half weeks – and it’s tough to make the case that they’re working aggressively to come to an agreement before that deadline.
For one thing, rather than counter the union’s latest offer during a meeting last week, the owners reportedly canceled a session scheduled for the following day, apparently because they were so appalled by the proposal. On Monday, the NFL filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, arguing that the union has refused to bargain in good faith with the intention of decertifying and filing an antitrust lawsuit. This assertion seems dubious, at best, given the recent actions by each camp.
Throw in the presence on the NFL’s side of the table of outside labor lawyer Bob Batterman, regarded as the architect of the NHL lockout that caused that cancellation of the 2004-05 season, and the players have received a clear message about where things are headed.
The players, on one hand, are told that they are “partners” who need to help share the owners’ investment and development costs to help sustain and grow the business. Yet when they’ve asked for proof or further explanations, as Manning attempted to do in Dallas, they are met by condescension and irritability – chiefly from Richardson, the man who by all rights should be the most upbeat and cheery person in the room.
Look, it’s Valentine’s Day, and I’m willing to cut Richardson a break. Maybe it hasn’t dawned on him that there’s a distinction between dealing with proud, accomplished athletes and fast-food employees.
I also suspect that because Richardson was instrumental in helping convince his fellow owners that the ’06 CBA extension was necessary – a move that proved to be unpopular, given the unanimous vote in 2009 to opt out of the deal two years early – he’s trying to make it up to them by being a hard-liner and demonstrating his commitment to winning back as many union concessions as possible.
So I’ll try to cut him some slack – but I also think Richardson needs to step back, count his blessings and give up his spot at the table to one of his peers who is more adept at keeping his cool.
If that doesn’t happen, I have another suggestion: The union should fight fiery temper with fiery temper and insist that one of Richardson’s players is present for every remaining session.
Yo, Steve Smith – How would you like a seat at the bargaining table?Comment
-
Re: Apparently the Panthers owner criticized Manning in the NFLPA/Owners meeting
What an idiot.
I hope Manning has a few gifts for him the next time you guys play themComment
Tweet
Comment