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 likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

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

  • Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76...ls-sources-say

    I'm leaning a little toward preferring him to join Arizona so that he's in the NFC, but it would also be kinda fun to see the Tebow controversy should he join Denver.

  • #2
    Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

    I'm surprised he likely isn't going to Miami...

    He should pick Arizona because they have Fitzgerald to catch balls. That would be a crazy combo.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

      Dolphins AM talk radio today is saying that if Manning goes to Denver, their owner Stephen Ross (who likes star power) may trade for Tebow, having to outbid Jacksonville.
      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


      • #4
        Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

        Tebow would be dumb to leave Denver if Peyton signs. If Tebow kept his mobility and gained 25% of the talent Peyton has in the pocket he would be a possible Pro Bowl QB when Manning retires in 3 years.

        I'm still surprised he's not considering Seattle really. Great stadium, great fans, and they were 7-9 last year with a terrible QB.
        Last edited by idioteque; 03-11-2012, 12:11 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
          Tebow would be dumb to leave Denver if Peyton signs. If Tebow kept his mobility and gained 25% of the talent Peyton has in the pocket he would be a possible Pro Bowl QB when Manning retires in 3 years.

          I'm still surprised he's not considering Seattle really. Great stadium, great fans, and they were 7-9 last year with a terrible QB.

          How would Tebow gain that mobility and talent if he was sitting on the bench behind Peyton? Sure Manning could teach him some things, but there's nothing Manning could offer him that is more valuable than taking reps in practice and playing in actual games.

          If I'm Tebow, I'd want out immediately if they signed Peyton. Tebow had plenty of sloppy moments last year, but lots of QBs are sloppy in their first full year. At the end of the day though, he led that team to a playoff win against a superior Pittsburgh team. Clearly a healthy Manning is light-years better than Tebow and if I were Denver I'd certainly be trying to sign him. But from Tebow's standpoint, he is good enough to start on several NFL teams and if I were him I'd try to force my way to one.

          One reason I'm kind of surprised that Peyton is looking at Denver is because he's always advocated how good young QBs should have the opportunity to start. But by going to the Broncos, he would basically be ruining the early part of Tebow's career there. Don't get me wrong, I think he should sign there if he thinks it's the best fit as he would clearly make them a much better team. But I just thought he would be more inclined to go to Miami because they are looking for a QB upgrade regardless of whether they get Manning or not. He wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes there.

          From Tebow's standpoint: Yeah, it's Peyton Manning, but he's 36 and will have not taken a snap in 20 months by the time the season starts in September. Tebow led the Broncos to a playoff win and rejuvenated the fan base. Any athlete would probably be a bit offended by getting kicked to the curb like that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

            I don't think Denver is really committed to Tebow so it's possible Tebow is gone whether Manning comes or not. Manning coming would just give them some cover to make the move and I can't see fans storming the gates if Tebow is released but they get Manning.

            So if Manning goes there it might look like he's pushing Tebow out or into the background, but he probably knows that really isn't the case. ...IMHO

            From the outside looking in the only possible reason I could see for Manning to not want to go to Miami would be out of respect to Marino and feeling the "star" QB that finally replaces the memory of Marino shouldn't be a pre-packaged (aging?) star coming in from FA. It should be a young QB coming in and growing into the role.

            I'm not sure I agree with that thinking, if it's even the thought process.

            My guess would be Miami should be Peyton's #1 destination. So if they're interested I'm not sure why he wouldn't be.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I don't think Denver is really committed to Tebow so it's possible Tebow is gone whether Manning comes or not. Manning coming would just give them some cover to make the move and I can't see fans storming the gates if Tebow is released but they get Manning.

              So if Manning goes there it might look like he's pushing Tebow out or into the background, but he probably knows that really isn't the case. ...IMHO

              From the outside looking in the only possible reason I could see for Manning to not want to go to Miami would be out of respect to Marino and feeling the "star" QB that finally replaces the memory of Marino shouldn't be a pre-packaged (aging?) star coming in from FA. It should be a young QB coming in and growing into the role.

              I'm not sure I agree with that thinking, if it's even the thought process.

              My guess would be Miami should be Peyton's #1 destination. So if they're interested I'm not sure why he wouldn't be.

              I agree that Denver isn't really committed to Tebow, but they were pretty much forced to to keep him next year after that playoff win. I think Peyton is the only available player that could kick Tebow out this season.

              Fans will definitely be pleased with signing Manning as they should be. There's no doubt that the Broncos would be a SB contender with a healthy Manning, so they should definitely try to make this move. But if they don't get Manning, then I just really don't see any other scenario where they could kick Tebow out in 2012 and not tick the fans off. So I think Manning would be directly responsible for Tebow not being the starter in 2012.

              I don't buy that Marino theory because Manning is interested in Denver, a franchise that identifies with Elway just like the Dolphins do with Marino. Maybe he's heard some things about the organizational structure in Miami that have turned him off. Denver has the Elway-Fox tandem which no doubt would impress someone who likes stability and structure like Manning.

              From the outside, Miami just makes so much sense. So there is clearly something there that has turned him off if these reports are true.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-11-2012, 01:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                He wont sign in Denver. WAYYYYYY TOO COLD. Either Arizona or Miami. I still have a feeling he and Wayne both go to Miami
                "What you do is so loud, I can't hear what you say" -Andrew Luck
                "If you turn the other cheek, I'm gonna hit you in the other cheek, too" -Charles Barkley
                "Ego is edging greatness out" -Rick Pitino
                Junior at the University of Louisville
                Greenfield-Central High School Alum '14
                Follow me on Twitter @steagles1
                1000th post - 4/16/12 2000th post - 6/24/12 3000th post - 3/8/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                  I don't buy that Marino theory because Manning is interested in Denver, a franchise that identifies with Elway just like the Dolphins do with Marino. Maybe he's heard some things about the organizational structure in Miami that have turned him off. Denver has the Elway-Fox tandem which no doubt would impress someone who likes stability and structure like Manning.

                  From the outside, Miami just makes so much sense. So there is clearly something there that has turned him off if these reports are true.
                  Clearly for the Bronco deal he'd have Elway's blessing... Maybe he needs Marino's blessing before he legitimately considers Miami?

                  I'm just guessing... I'm having a hard time trying to figure why Miami wouldn't be an option. Market-wise, having Miami as an option, even if it isn't really a preferred option, helps drive up the price for Manning. So if Manning/agent doesn't really want Miami at least publicly thought of as an option then it makes me wonder.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                    What's the cap situation for these various teams? How many players will they have to delete in order to fit Manning in (ala the Colts)?
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                      Heh... unless Miami's allegedly not an option because it's so obvious so the agent/Manning want Miami to think they are really gonna have to step up to the plate because Arizona and Denver are where Manning's looking at hard.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                        One reason I'm kind of surprised that Peyton is looking at Denver is because he's always advocated how good young QBs should have the opportunity to start. But by going to the Broncos, he would basically be ruining the early part of Tebow's career there.
                        I do not see the contradiction between the two sentences.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                          Yeah don't believe it.

                          Only because these are the only teams he's visited just now I mean really aren't there other teams he's visiting as well if its just these two then why bother with Miami and others?

                          Just saying

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            How would Tebow gain that mobility and talent if he was sitting on the bench behind Peyton? Sure Manning could teach him some things, but there's nothing Manning could offer him that is more valuable than taking reps in practice and playing in actual games.

                            If I'm Tebow, I'd want out immediately if they signed Peyton. Tebow had plenty of sloppy moments last year, but lots of QBs are sloppy in their first full year. At the end of the day though, he led that team to a playoff win against a superior Pittsburgh team. Clearly a healthy Manning is light-years better than Tebow and if I were Denver I'd certainly be trying to sign him. But from Tebow's standpoint, he is good enough to start on several NFL teams and if I were him I'd try to force my way to one.

                            One reason I'm kind of surprised that Peyton is looking at Denver is because he's always advocated how good young QBs should have the opportunity to start. But by going to the Broncos, he would basically be ruining the early part of Tebow's career there. Don't get me wrong, I think he should sign there if he thinks it's the best fit as he would clearly make them a much better team. But I just thought he would be more inclined to go to Miami because they are looking for a QB upgrade regardless of whether they get Manning or not. He wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes there.

                            From Tebow's standpoint: Yeah, it's Peyton Manning, but he's 36 and will have not taken a snap in 20 months by the time the season starts in September. Tebow led the Broncos to a playoff win and rejuvenated the fan base. Any athlete would probably be a bit offended by getting kicked to the curb like that.
                            I don't see any teams interesting in Tebow as a long-term starting option, that was my assumption in making the point I did. Obviously if he could go somewhere and start and get starter's reps and be the long term option it might make sense for him, but anywhere he goes he's going to be a stop-gap and if he leaves Denver it is just going to start a cycle of him getting passed around the league like the journeyman QB that his current talent level represents. Tebow is right now an effective mobile QB but he can't read the defense to save his life sometimes, that is definitely a skill Peyton could teach him despite any physical limitations Tebow does have. Tebow has to decide if he wants to be Denver's consensus starter in three years or if he wants to start in Jacksonville next year and be horribly exposed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Peyton likely to sign with Broncos or Cardinals

                              Personally, I want him to go to Arizona. Not only do I think it's the best fit, but it would mean his games would be on Fox and not get pre-empted for Colts games. Denver's west coast, and I would think most of their games would be 4pm, so that wouldn't be horrible. If he goes to Miami, though, we won't get to see half his games because they'll be on the same time as us.

                              Of course, wherever he goes he'll get 4 or 5 night games, so that's a plus.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X