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

Manning thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Manning thread

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    Luck will make Colts fans get over Peyton very quickly. I wish Manning the best in Denver, but Andrew Luck will do big things for the Colts
    A little hint for you: Andrew Luck will NEVER make Colts fans get over Peyton in his entire career. Luck may do som good things for the Colts but he won't come close to being Peyton Manning (and neither will anyone else). RG3 was really good in his first preseason game. I am in Texas and he has endoresments everywhere. I wonder if Luck has any? ...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Manning thread

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      I will say this, having watched practically every Manning throw over the past 14 years:

      His motion looks... hitched. If anyone ever had a back or neck injury and tried to throw the ball, you know what I'm talkin' about --- limited motion, like you're not extending fully due to pain or just flat-out can't extend that far anymore.. His motion doesn't look as.... free as it used to. He looks like he's still not getting full extension on his neck as he throws it.

      I dunno. I see it. He doesn't look exactly the same.

      Other than that, I thought he looked okay. His one interception, even though I didn't get to see replays, looked like it was a combination of being slightly thrown behind, and then the receiver did a poor job. The result was the ball got batted backwards towards a defender.

      It was weird seeing him not in a Colt uniform, like seeing Montana in a Chief uni. Just wasn't right.

      That is because it isn't right........ ... .

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Manning thread

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        A little hint for you: Andrew Luck will NEVER make Colts fans get over Peyton in his entire career. Luck may do som good things for the Colts but he won't come close to being Peyton Manning (and neither will anyone else). RG3 was really good in his first preseason game. I am in Texas and he has endoresments everywhere. I wonder if Luck has any? ...
        Even if Luck doesn't ever match up to Manning in terms of individual talent, if the Colts win two or more Super Bowls with Luck, the Luck era supersedes the Manning era. That wouldn't entirely be Mannings fault given Polian fell off terrible in the last couple of years, but its all about the rings.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Manning thread

          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
          Even if Luck doesn't ever match up to Manning in terms of individual talent, if the Colts win two or more Super Bowls with Luck, the Luck era supersedes the Manning era. That wouldn't entirely be Mannings fault given Polian fell off terrible in the last couple of years, but its all about the rings.
          A little hint for you: You have to get to a Super Bowl to have a chance to win one, you have to get to the AFC Finals to get to the Super Bowl, you have to win a couple of playoff games to get the finals and you have to get to the playoffs before you can win any. The Colts went 36 years between Super Bowl appearances before Peyton took them there. This wait could be just as long. Luck may never get to a Super Bowl, in fact, the odds are against it. Luck may never get to an AFC Final, in fact, the odds are against it and Luck may have a very long wait to even get into the playoffs if he ever gets there. Indy fans are spoiled because of Peyton Manning. They are about to face harsh reality...... ...

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Manning thread

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            That is because it isn't right........ ... .
            It isn't right, but that's the world we live in. Who won a Super Bowl after Montana left, the '9ers or the Chiefs?
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Manning thread

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              A little hint for you: You have to get to a Super Bowl to have a chance to win one, you have to get to the AFC Finals to get to the Super Bowl, you have to win a couple of playoff games to get the finals and you have to get to the playoffs before you can win any. The Colts went 36 years between Super Bowl appearances before Peyton took them there. This wait could be just as long. Luck may never get to a Super Bowl, in fact, the odds are against it. Luck may never get to an AFC Final, in fact, the odds are against it and Luck may have a very long wait to even get into the playoffs if he ever gets there. Indy fans are spoiled because of Peyton Manning. They are about to face harsh reality...... ...
              Yep, you are definitely facing a harsh reality, Blu.... if you can call it that.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Manning thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                It isn't right, but that's the world we live in. Who won a Super Bowl after Montana left, the '9ers or the Chiefs?
                They would have won another one with Montana if he had stayed. He was little closer to the end than Peyton was..... The Colts may go another 36 years without getting to the Super Bowl too..... ...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Montana and Manning were both 36 and spent 13 years with their teams... and coming off serious injuries... so..... Montana was closer to the end?

                  You know, you're always proclaiming odds and historical precedence, so answer me this Oh Loony One --- How many Super Bowls have been won by a team starting a quarterback that was 36 or older?

                  Perhaps you ought to chew on that for a bit and maybe you'll see why Indy made the tough but correct choice. But you probably won't because there's not a whole lot of logic goin' on "up there".
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-11-2012, 05:57 PM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Montana and Manning were both 36 and spent 13 years with their teams... and coming off serious injuries... so..... Montana was closer to the end?

                    You know, you're always proclaiming odds and historical precedence, so answer me this Oh Loony One --- How many Super Bowls have been won by a team starting a quarterback that was 36 or older?

                    Perhaps you ought to chew on that for a bit and maybe you'll see why Indy made the tough but correct choice. But you probably won't because there's not a whole lot of logic goin' on "up there".

                    I am well aware of that stat. I am not saying the Colts would have gotten to another Super Bowl with Manning in the next five years either. I am SURE they won't do it with Andrew Luck. The 49ers were still a Super Bowl caliber team. They also replaced Montana with a HOFer in Young. Andrew Luck may not even be a good starting QB much less an HOFer. I don't see the two things being related. Do you think SF would have shipped out Montana for a rookie QB? I don't think it was a tough choice for Irsay at all. He just looked and said, I save about $90 million and the choice was made. Irsay doesn't give a damn about legacy or even winning Super Bowls. Peyton fell into his lap and took the Colts there. Jeff George came out with all of the hype that Luck has and he had a much stronger arm than Luck or anyone else. You will comeback and say but Jeff was a knucklehead and can't be compared to Luck. Well, the fact is, he is a very good comparison. Luck is more likely to be a bust than a superstar. The reality will be somewhere in the middle and that won't be good enough to carry a flawed team to a Super Bowl anytime soon. I think Peyton has a chance to get there again with Denver in the next three years. I am sure we are all eager to see how this all works out......... I know that I am..... ...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Manning thread

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Montana and Manning were both 36 and spent 13 years with their teams... and coming off serious injuries... so..... Montana was closer to the end?

                      You know, you're always proclaiming odds and historical precedence, so answer me this Oh Loony One --- How many Super Bowls have been won by a team starting a quarterback that was 36 or older?

                      Perhaps you ought to chew on that for a bit and maybe you'll see why Indy made the tough but correct choice. But you probably won't because there's not a whole lot of logic goin' on "up there".

                      There is a difference in age and conditioning now as compared to when Montana played. Players stay long and play well. Ray Lewis and John Elway himself are good examples. Peyton has taken relatively few hits in his career and I think he can play into his 40s if he wants to do that. We will see if Luck can get through this year with the number of hits he will take. He will catch up to Manning in that area in his first two years in the league unless that line plays a lot better than I expect them to play...... ...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Manning thread

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        A little hint for you: You have to get to a Super Bowl to have a chance to win one, you have to get to the AFC Finals to get to the Super Bowl, you have to win a couple of playoff games to get the finals and you have to get to the playoffs before you can win any. The Colts went 36 years between Super Bowl appearances before Peyton took them there. This wait could be just as long. Luck may never get to a Super Bowl, in fact, the odds are against it. Luck may never get to an AFC Final, in fact, the odds are against it and Luck may have a very long wait to even get into the playoffs if he ever gets there. Indy fans are spoiled because of Peyton Manning. They are about to face harsh reality...... ...
                        Ok then let's make a bet. If the Colts don't win a playoff game by the end of 2017, you can drive your motorhome to DC and I will buy you a steak dinner at Ruth's Chris. If they do win you drive your motorhome to DC and buy me a steak dinner and Ruth's Chris. Let's do it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Manning thread

                          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                          Ok then let's make a bet. If the Colts don't win a playoff game by the end of 2017, you can drive your motorhome to DC and I will buy you a steak dinner at Ruth's Chris. If they do win you drive your motorhome to DC and buy me a steak dinner and Ruth's Chris. Let's do it.
                          You are on and I hope you win. I would be delighted both to see the Colts win and to treat you to a steak at Ruth's. In fact, I'll be out in the DC area next summer and I will be happy to treat you to dinner and talk about the Colts...... ...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Manning thread

                            I'm going to interject something here... Based on the commercial and recent video/photos from this week:
                            Manning looks old.
                            He might have a laser rocket arm and a football computer mind still, but he looks old. It makes you (or at least me) wonder just how quickly the clock is ticking for him even without the surgery issues.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: Manning thread

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              I'm going to interject something here... Based on the commercial and recent video/photos from this week:
                              Manning looks old.
                              He might have a laser rocket arm and a football computer mind still, but he looks old. It makes you (or at least me) wonder just how quickly the clock is ticking for him even without the surgery issues.
                              He looks like a 36 year old which in the NFL is old then again he has twin babies I'm sure that would age anyone...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Manning thread

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                I am well aware of that stat. I am not saying the Colts would have gotten to another Super Bowl with Manning in the next five years either. I am SURE they won't do it with Andrew Luck. The 49ers were still a Super Bowl caliber team. They also replaced Montana with a HOFer in Young. Andrew Luck may not even be a good starting QB much less an HOFer. I don't see the two things being related. Do you think SF would have shipped out Montana for a rookie QB? I don't think it was a tough choice for Irsay at all. He just looked and said, I save about $90 million and the choice was made. Irsay doesn't give a damn about legacy or even winning Super Bowls. Peyton fell into his lap and took the Colts there. Jeff George came out with all of the hype that Luck has and he had a much stronger arm than Luck or anyone else. You will comeback and say but Jeff was a knucklehead and can't be compared to Luck. Well, the fact is, he is a very good comparison. Luck is more likely to be a bust than a superstar. The reality will be somewhere in the middle and that won't be good enough to carry a flawed team to a Super Bowl anytime soon. I think Peyton has a chance to get there again with Denver in the next three years. I am sure we are all eager to see how this all works out......... I know that I am..... ...
                                Read this article and then tell me their "hype" coming out of college (comparing one guy who was a consensus #1 pick for two seasons and was the best QB in college to a guy who used three workouts to become a non-definite #1 pick) was the same.

                                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...6924/index.htm

                                George was hyped because of his arm, Luck for pretty much every thing else. They don't compare at all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X