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:
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

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

Grantland: The Possible Destinations for One Peyton Manning

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grantland: The Possible Destinations for One Peyton Manning

    The Possible Destinations for One Peyton Manning -

    Originally posted by Bill Barnwell
    When we wrote about the Suck for Luck campaign before Halloween, we suspected that the Miami Dolphins would end up with Andrew Luck, either by producing the worst record in football or via trade. Since then, though, the Dolphins have gone 4-3, pushing them away from the Luck sweepstakes. The Colts had a 33.2 percent chance of getting the first overall pick when we wrote our initial piece, but heading into Week 15, Football Outsiders estimates their chances of holding the first overall pick at 91.1 percent. If the Colts want Andrew Luck, they're going to get him.

    So then, let's assume that the Colts will want to draft the best quarterback prospect of his generation and avoid blocking him with the best quarterback from the last one. We can also be pretty sure that Peyton Manning will have input into where he goes next. Why? The Colts owe Peyton Manning a $28 million option bonus that comes due before the 2012 league year, and if they were to pay him the bonus and then trade him, Manning's cap hold would be an untenable $38.8 million. If the Colts want to receive some sort of return for Manning, they will need to restructure his contract to avoid paying that bonus, and as part of those negotiations Manning will undoubtedly get some say over where he can be traded. If not, the Colts would have to cut Manning, and Peyton would get to play wherever he chooses. Either way, Peyton Manning is not going to end up somewhere he isn't willing to play.

    With that in mind, we can begin handicapping the Peyton Manning trade market. Someone is going to end up with the best quarterback in NFL history, and we can narrow that destination down to one of eight teams that are likely in the running. Let's start by eliminating the 23 teams that aren't going to be involved in a Manning trade this offseason, Guess Who style.

    "Does your team already have a franchise quarterback?"
    Eliminates: Bears, Chargers, Eagles, Falcons, Giants, Packers, Patriots, Raiders, Saints, Steelers

    It's almost impossible to envision any of these 10 teams both giving up on their current starting quarterback and then outlaying a serious amount of draft picks and cash to acquire Manning. Carson Palmer may not be a franchise quarterback, but the Raiders just gave up a first- and second-round pick to treat him like one. The Falcons might like Peyton more than Matt Ryan, but after dealing their 2012 first-round pick to Cleveland in the Julio Jones trade, it's hard to see how they could cobble together a package the Colts would accept.

    "Does your team already have Tim Tebow?"
    Eliminates: Broncos

    Should speak for itself.

    "Does your team play in the AFC South?"
    Eliminates: Jaguars, Texans, Titans

    The Colts would never deal Manning to a team in the AFC South. Their nightmare scenario in the case that they release Manning has to be that Peyton returns to Tennessee and revitalizes the Titans. They might be willing to trade him to a team within their conference, but you have to figure that Indianapolis would prefer Manning ends up in the NFC.

    "Does your team already have a quarterback of the future whom Manning would block and whom you are committed to testing over the next two years?"
    Eliminates: Buccaneers, Bengals, Lions, Panthers, Rams, Vikings

    Josh Freeman and Sam Bradford have been awful in 2011, but their effective 2010 seasons should get them at least one more season as their team's starters in 2012. The jury is still out on Matthew Stafford. Rookies Cam Newton and Andy Dalton have been effective during their debut seasons, while Christian Ponder has shown signs of promise in Minnesota.

    "Does your team play somewhere Peyton Manning wouldn't go in a million years?"
    Eliminates: Bills, Browns, Cardinals

    The Browns could actually make the best offer for Manning of any team that needs a quarterback, since they could send the Colts two 2012 first-rounders (including their own pick, likely to fall in the top 10) and throw in Colt McCoy to serve as a backup for Luck. But can you imagine Peyton Manning showing up for Week 1 of the 2012 season in a Cleveland Browns jersey? Of course not.

    That leaves us with eight possible destinations for Manning. In ascending order of desirability for Peyton:

    8. Kansas City Chiefs

    If you squint long enough, you can make sense of this one. The Chiefs have plenty of young talent on defense, and with no head coach in Kansas City at the moment, Manning could basically pick a head coach and offensive coordinator to bring with him. Kansas City also has one of the best medical staffs in football, so it might help keep Peyton healthy going forward. The problem is that the offense really isn't very good. The offensive line is shaky at pass-blocking, Jamaal Charles has a torn ACL, Dwayne Bowe is about to become an unrestricted free agent, and Jonathan Baldwin and Dexter McCluster are still lottery tickets.

    7. Washington Redskins

    The Redskins certainly need a quarterback worse than any team on this list; if you really need us to quote the numbers on Rex Grossman and John Beck, well, they've completed less than 59 percent of their passes and have thrown more interceptions (20) than touchdowns (14). It feels like Manning would somehow have a greater legacy if he turned around things in D.C. as opposed to some of the other destinations on this list, but Washington's wideouts are ancient and its star left tackle, Trent Williams, tested positive for marijuana 10 different times in September and October. You get the feeling that the Redskins would want Manning a lot more than he would want the Redskins.

    6. Seattle Seahawks

    The Seachickens spent their 2010 and 2011 first-round picks on offensive tackles (Russell Okung and James Carpenter, respectively), so they should be able to keep Manning upright over the next few years. Free-agent signings Sidney Rice and Zach Miller have been busts at receiver this year, but they would look a lot better with Manning at quarterback than Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst. Would the Seahawks make a huge outlay for Manning, though, when they could put together a smaller package and trade up to draft USC quarterback Matt Barkley?

    5. Miami Dolphins

    Again, Manning would get the benefit of a clean slate here, as the absence of a head coach allows him to help select someone who will stay out of his way and structure an offense that Peyton will want to play in. And like Kansas City, Manning would be playing on the opposite end of a talented young defense, but the playmakers here (notably Brandon Marshall and Davone Bess) aren't about to leave. Would Manning really want to go play somewhere, though, where his team clearly looks to be a distant no. 3 in its division? At least he has experience playing the Patriots every year.

    4. Baltimore Ravens

    Now, we get into situations in which Manning would be the final piece of a championship puzzle. We've all seen the Joe Flacco experience for four seasons now; it's not working. Flacco's an average starting quarterback by just about every definition of the word. Check out his Advanced Passing stats at; he's right around the 100 league average for his career in every statistic besides interception rate. We know how great the Ravens' defense is, and they already have an offense with players who would fit Manning perfectly; Ray Rice, Anquan Boldin, Torrey Smith, and Dennis Pitta are pretty good style matches for Joseph Addai, Reggie Wayne, Pierre Garcon, and Dallas Clark. (Obviously, Rice is better than Addai and Wayne is better than Boldin, but you get the idea.) The only problem is the Ravens are always going to be up against the salary cap because of the amount of money they spend on their defense, and they already need to sign Rice to a long-term extension. They probably would not be able to afford Manning, even if he's a great fit.

    3. New York Jets

    Everything from the previous paragraph applies here, but the Jets need Peyton more than the Ravens do, and general manager Mike Tannenbaum is a wizard at carving out cap space for a big signing. The most fun thing about this possibility would be that moment after the trade when the Jets fans who have been behind Mark Sanchez for three years instantly turn on him. Did you know that Sanchez is taking home $14.75 million this year?

    2. Dallas Cowboys

    Oh, like you weren't thinking about it already, Cowboys fans. If the Cowboys fail to go deep into the playoffs this year, there will certainly be talk about replacing Tony Romo, right or wrong. The Dallas offense is pretty great as is, but imagine if Peyton Manning got to work in that same offense. Do you think Peyton Manning misses that throw to Miles Austin that would have finished off the Giants on Sunday night? Manning would get Austin, Dez Bryant, a Hall of Fame tight end, a pass-catching running back, and a pure runner to go with two young, talented tackles. That would be the best offense in football, Packers be damned. The only problem is contractual; the Cowboys would have been able to deal Romo very easily under the terms of his old deal, but they renegotiated his deal in September to turn his base salary into a signing bonus spread over multiple cap years. In addition, if he's traded before 2013, his contract is automatically extended to 2016. So while the Cowboys might be able and willing to acquire Manning, they might struggle to get rid of Romo.

    1. San Francisco 49ers

    If Jim Harbaugh can't get Andrew Luck, wouldn't this be the next best thing? With Harbaugh as coach, that young offensive line percolating, a dominant defense, and the NFC West on the docket for six games a year, the Niners can own this division for the next three to four years. That's pretty clear. But when they lose in the playoffs this year, the narrative around them is going to become simple: "We need an upgrade on Alex Smith if we're ever going to win a Super Bowl." The Niners left $16 million in cap space unused this year, and with a young roster, they should be able to fit Manning under the cap in 2012. And while the San Francisco offense isn't quite as good as the unit Manning would join in Dallas, Peyton would have enough weapons to justify making the move. We've seen how good the 49ers can be with a below-average quarterback this season; now, what could they do with an elite one?

  • #2
    Re: Grantland: The Possible Destinations for One Peyton Manning

    It all depends on what we could get in a trade package with Peyton versus Luck. I would almost expect we could actually get more assets drafting Luck and trading him for multiple 1st round picks and several defensive impact players on the defensive side of the ball. If I remember right Cleveland has 2 1st round picks this year. If they would offer both picks, 2013 1st rounder and 2 quality defensive impact players from their roster that were younger would we pull the trigger?