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

Peyton Manning

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

  • #16
    Re: Peyton Manning

    I don't think Manning is overrated, I would agree with Jay about the need to build a team on a more diverse foundation than a glitzy high-powered passing attack. This falls on Polian for personnel decisions in my opinion.

    Having said that, the Colts play the regular season with the same group of players and the same strengths and weaknesses, and have a lot more success in those regular season games even if you just limit the analysis to regular season games against playoff opponents. What's the difference? There's no denying that Manning is less efficient in the playoffs. Most QBS are, Montana being the big exception since his numbers went way UP in the playoffs, and Brady being a smaller exception since he at least has maintained or slightly raised production on average.

    What doesn't seem to work well in January is a defensive philosophy of putting all your eggs in the "sack the QB and hope for a turnover" principle. You need to win the lines of scrimmage and not hope that all your losses in the trenches are negated by a big play. To do that you need to balance your roster payout among quality linemen and maybe let a few high priced offensive or defensive "skill players" walk away.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-05-2009, 04:30 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Peyton Manning

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

      I would strongly disagree with the notion that your defense played well enough to win the game. During the second half in particular, the Chargers moved the ball with ease, but ended two drives in the endzone with turnovers that kept the final score from becoming 28-17 SD, in regulation. The takeaways helped with the score, but it was clear that the Charges offense could do whatever it wanted if they protected the ball better. I don't know why Rivers spiked the ball on first down in the last minute - they had plenty of time and one additional shot at the end zone might have also prevented the need to play the overtime period.
      The D wasn't great, but they gave the offense a chance to win the game. If the Colts can convert that 3rd and 2, then the game is all but over with the Defense allowing just 14 points.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Peyton Manning

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        I think he was 12-10 overall, so slightly above 0.500.

        And you have to put some type of footnote next to Elway's postseason record because they missed the playoffs in 88, 90, 92, 94 and 95. Favre, Marino and Manning were at least getting into the first round of the playoffs consistently, even if they were losing.
        If I am reading the records correctly, Favre didn't lose in the first playoff game until 1999. The GB playoff experience was a steady ascension to the SB in '98.

        Then in 99 GB and Favre were knocked out on the first playoff game (27-30).

        They next appeared in the playoffs in 02 and won the wildcard game. 03 they lost.... 04 they won... 05 they lost... 08 they won.

        So if there's any lesson there at all, late in Favre's career the playoff failures (and misses entirely) became more common place. The first part of his career didn't have a opening game playoff loss until '99 AFTER their SB title... and they made the playoffs each of those years until 2000.
        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, thatís teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Peyton Manning

          Favre is the most overrated player in the NFL, to change the 1st sentence of the first post in this thread.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Peyton Manning

            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
            Favre is the most overrated player in the NFL, to change the 1st sentence of the first post in this thread.
            I disagree. Farve gets all the attention via ESPN but the fact he was not even traded for a first round pick speaks volumes about his value around the league.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Peyton Manning

              Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
              The D wasn't great, but they gave the offense a chance to win the game. If the Colts can convert that 3rd and 2, then the game is all but over with the Defense allowing just 14 points.
              The Colts kicked off the ball and got the first score of the game.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Peyton Manning

                Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                I disagree. Farve gets all the attention via ESPN but the fact he was not even traded for a first round pick speaks volumes about his value around the league.
                He's my age and "retired" last offseason. Of course he didn't get a first round pick.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Peyton Manning

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Not for me it doesn't. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just can't believe the Colts have went this long without truly addressing those things.

                  -Bball
                  Amen!

                  More than anything, the defensive scheme needs some serious tweaking and we need an upgrade at each of the LB spots. Every playoff game I can think of that the Colts have lost since Peyton has been with them has been lost mainly because we couldn't stop the run. This game looked eerily similar to the Miami OT loss in the WildCard game of 2002 or maybe it was 03. Darin Sproles was this year's Lamont Jordan!

                  You can't compare the Colts to the Patriots in that the Pats defense has been superior to our defense for years and although their defense this season wasn't quite as potent they still don't give up over 120 rushing yards per game.

                  Peyton's career isn't too much different than Dan Marino's other than Peyton actually won a Super Bowl. Dan had to try to get it done most years without a running game and sometimes with a porous defense.

                  With all that said, I lay the blame for this loss on the Defense and penalties. They played okay through the first 57 minutes, even had some huge takeaways in the red zone, but then just sort of fell apart at the end. I don't think I've ever seen so many penalties from a Colts team in such a short period of time.

                  The Chargers special teams deserve major props too. They kept pinning the Colts inside their own 10. How many times did that happen? Four? Has a team ever had four punts fielded inside the 10 in a playoff game? He averaged 53 yards per punt! That's amazing! I sure hope they gave that punter a game ball.

                  Peyton wasn't perfect and he missed some throws early that could've lead to a TD instead of that FG... and that sack in the fourth on their own 1 was brutal but the burden of the blame goes to the defense and the Colts special teams.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Peyton Manning

                    I don't blame Polian too much for the run game going to hell this past season. I'll blame him if he doesn't do anything to fix it though.

                    It's not his fault Addai regresses as time goes on. I think I'm going to call Addai "Benjamin Button" from now on. He started out his career as a hell of a running back and made a pro bowl early on, but he got worse in his 3rd season when he should have got better (like practically every other player). His growth has been the opposite of most every other player.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Peyton Manning

                      If your running game is struggling, it is probably not the RBs fault.

                      It takes seven different guys to fix the running game: LT, LG, C, RG, RT, TE, and FB. If they create holes, even a guy like Willie Parker can have 1,000+ yard seasons, and he couldn't even get on the field in college.

                      Your starter is probably neither the problem nor the solution. He's probably neutral. The other guy didn't really have much success running the ball, either.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Peyton Manning

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        If your running game is struggling, it is probably not the RBs fault.

                        It takes seven different guys to fix the running game: LT, LG, C, RG, RT, TE, and FB. If they create holes, even a guy like Willie Parker can have 1,000+ yard seasons, and he couldn't even get on the field in college.

                        Your starter is probably neither the problem nor the solution. He's probably neutral. The other guy didn't really have much success running the ball, either.
                        In his brief time, Rhodes looked better than Addai the other night.

                        The blocking was suspect in 07, but Addai looked much better than he did this year.

                        It's not all Addai's fault, but he isn't the same player that he was in 06 and 07

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Peyton Manning

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          If your running game is struggling, it is probably not the RBs fault.

                          It takes seven different guys to fix the running game: LT, LG, C, RG, RT, TE, and FB. If they create holes, even a guy like Willie Parker can have 1,000+ yard seasons, and he couldn't even get on the field in college.

                          Your starter is probably neither the problem nor the solution. He's probably neutral. The other guy didn't really have much success running the ball, either.
                          The Colts O-Line hasn't been able to run block all year. It's amazing how often they get pushed into the backfield. Almost like they're using pass blocking technique to run block. I still think a 2-back backfield would help it - some.

                          It would be interesting to know how often Colts backs get hit in the backfield - it's a lot.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Peyton Manning

                            In no way is Manning to blame for the loss. It wasn't just him.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Peyton Manning

                              I get sick and tired of hearing how it's always Peyton's fault.

                              People have already said the lack of running game which means the o-line was poor, plus the defense was poor.

                              The fact that the Colts made the playoffs and were even in a position to win that game shows you how freaking good Peyton Manning is.

                              Hopefully this team can get healthy and re-tool in the offseason. I wonder if Caldwell takes over next season maybe taking over might mean a little different defensive philosphy from what Dungy likes.

                              I just hope some changes our made. It's a shame to watch first round losses with Peyton Manning as your quarterback. The Colts will be lucky to ever have another quarterback half as good as Peyton and those who complain and blame it all on him won't realize what the Colts have until he is gone.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Peyton Manning

                                Romnie, I disagree you hear it is always Manning's Fault. The local media in Indianapolis loves Manning and is afraid to write a bad story about him. He has free reign over the offense and fails to produce in the playoffs. Donovan McNabb take heat in Philly & Eli takes heat in New York. Peyton should get some of the blame because he makes the most money.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X