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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • #31
    Re: Non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    To me the Colts biggest mistake was not to find a way to trade Manning and get picks or something, how you let that guy just walk away like that?
    Easy. Flexibility and respect. Letting him go instead of taking on new contracts and players gives Indy the flexibility to retool the way they want. Letting him walk allows Manning to choose where he wants to go on his own terms and not be tied to some situation he didn't want to be a part of. It allowed Manning to have suitors and he could choose the right situation for himself.
    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


    • #32
      Re: Non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Just because I miss Manning doesn't mean that I don't think Luck will be a great QB. But Manning played here for 13 years. It's only natural to wish that he was on our team after watching yesterday.

      Theoretically, you *could* have traded the pick for quite a haul of assets. I'm not debating whether it would have been a wise move or not, I'm just saying that you *could* have done it. Whatever you got from trading the pick could have fixed some of the problems. But let's not forget that this team would have won more games last year had they had average QB play. But they had what is maybe the worst rotation of QB's in modern NFL history. That is the primary reason we lost so many games.

      Two years ago, we caught every bad break imaginable and still won 10 games. The year before that, every break seemed to go our way and we started out 14-0 and went to the Super Bowl. The truth is somewhere in the middle, which is about 12 wins. There is no question that Manning could have won 11-12 games with this cupcake schedule. Pointing that out does not make me anti-Colt or anti-Luck. I've been extremely high on Luck over the last few months, just go back and look at the posts I've made.
      Not disagreein with ya, I know you've posted some supportive posts in recent weeks, which makes your posts today look a little like they're hanging from a cliff. The tones of these posts a day after a rookie struggles and a legend shines is classic buyer's remorse, and you didn't make a bad purchase! You just gotta trust it and have faith that it will work out better down the road. Luck was the right choice, just gotta hang in there.
      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


      • #33
        Re: Non-Colts thread

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Not disagreein with ya, I know you've posted some supportive posts in recent weeks, which makes your posts today look a little like they're hanging from a cliff. The tones of these posts a day after a rookie struggles and a legend shines is classic buyer's remorse, and you didn't make a bad purchase! You just gotta trust it and have faith that it will work out better down the road. Luck was the right choice, just gotta hang in there.

        I understand all that, but I do think that my reaction is a very natural one. When one of the greatest players ever plays on your team for 13 years and sets record after record, it's pretty rough seeing him in another jersey, especially when you never dreamed of that scenario prior to a year ago. If he stays healthy, Denver probably wins 12 games and Manning wins MVP. As much as I like Luck, it's hard not to wish that Manning could have rode into the sunset at age 39 or 40 in a Colts uniform, as he should have all along.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Non-Colts thread

          Don't gotta tell me --- I'm a Colt fan, I love Manning, too. I wanted all the things you just listed... but I also know it usually doesn't happen the way you think it will.
          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


          • #35
            Re: Non-Colts thread

            Not overly excited about the Monday night games tonight. Bal/Cin doesn't do much for me. SD/Oak might be good, but I could use some sleep.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
              Not overly excited about the Monday night games tonight. Bal/Cin doesn't do much for me. SD/Oak might be good, but I could use some sleep.
              Who is calling the second game? If it's Greeny and Golic, I'm thanking my lucky stars I have to work...
              Edit Signature

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                To me the Colts biggest mistake was not to find a way to trade Manning and get picks or something, how you let that guy just walk away like that?
                In order to trade PM, the Colts needed to have the rights to trade him. That meant paying him the option bonus of $28MM.

                The next thing they needed to trade PM was an NFL team willing to step into the contract the Colts had for PM. That translates to a 4 year deal and $35.4MM. Since the Colts paid the first part of the contract in the first 2 years of $54.6MM, the Colts would also want some reimbursement in cash, which the trading team would have had to pay.

                Assuming this happened, the Colts would then have to suffer the acceleration of the pro-rated portion of the cap hits to the current year or $38MM making the dead cap space for 2012 $62MM, or about 50% of the total team cap.

                Releasing PM before paying him the option bonus of $28MM, resulted in a 2012 cap hit of $10.4MM and the dead cap space $34MM.

                So, compare....

                1) Trade PM....cap hit $38MM...after spending $28MM in cash
                2) Release PM....cap hit $10.4MM

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                  In order to trade PM, the Colts needed to have the rights to trade him. That meant paying him the option bonus of $28MM.

                  The next thing they needed to trade PM was an NFL team willing to step into the contract the Colts had for PM. That translates to a 4 year deal and $35.4MM. Since the Colts paid the first part of the contract in the first 2 years of $54.6MM, the Colts would also want some reimbursement in cash, which the trading team would have had to pay.

                  Assuming this happened, the Colts would then have to suffer the acceleration of the pro-rated portion of the cap hits to the current year or $38MM making the dead cap space for 2012 $62MM, or about 50% of the total team cap.

                  Releasing PM before paying him the option bonus of $28MM, resulted in a 2012 cap hit of $10.4MM and the dead cap space $34MM.

                  So, compare....

                  1) Trade PM....cap hit $38MM...after spending $28MM in cash
                  2) Release PM....cap hit $10.4MM
                  Thank you, I knew there was a financial reasoning behind it, but wasn't clear on the specifics.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    To me the Colts biggest mistake was not to find a way to trade Manning and get picks or something, how you let that guy just walk away like that?
                    because everyone knew they couldn't keep Peyton and Luck. too much money tied up for one spot. because both Peyton and Luck would want to start and that would lead to problems, some guys wanting Peyton to start, some wanting Luck.

                    trading Peyton was never really an option. and the Colts wanted to show some class and let him choose where he would finish his career after everything he gave them.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Non-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I like Luck and don't doubt that he will be a great quarterback. But 3-4 years is a long time, and the sports world revolves around the present. If Manning carved Pitt up after not playing a real game since January 2011, then just imagine how badly he will be slaughtering teams mid-season. Manning owns those big prime time moments like last night, and I wish he was still doing them in Indy, the only place he should have ever played.
                      Blame Polian. He built the house of cards that made Manning's playoff chances lower than they should've been, and the team's ability to play without him weak. ...and then never addressed any of that as Manning's career headed into its final seasons.

                      Thanks to Polian and the realities of the NFL Irsay had little choice but to do what he did.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Thanks to Polian and the realities of the NFL Irsay had little choice but to do what he did.

                        I agree 100% that Polian did a pretty lousy job from 2007 onward.

                        However, I do disagree that Irsay had "little choice" but to do what he did. He could have kept Manning and traded the Luck pick for a massive haul of assets that could have fixed the holes in this team. I'm not debating whether it would have been the right move or not, but it could have been done. Everyone acts like that renewing Manning's contract would have been armageddon for the Colts franchise, yet we were told by Irsay himself that it was a friendly deal when Manning initially signed it in July 2011.

                        The main reason we only won 2 games last year was because we had a rotation of QB's who did not belong in the NFL. Having an average NFL quarterback (or maybe playing Dan O more) would have left us with about 5 wins on the season instead of 2. We competed hard early on before the losing began to take a serious mental toll. Polian's biggest fault was completely neglecting the backup QB position and just assuming that Manning would always be around, but that's understandable to an extent given that Manning was an iron man.

                        I like Luck and think that the future will be bright with him. I can certainly sympathize with Irsay in that he had a very tough decision. But I just don't buy all this talk that the Colts could never have won another SB with Manning had he returned here. We could have sold the number 1 pick for a king's ransom and immediately drafted players who would have filled voids. Manning alone is worth 10 wins in a down year (2010) and 12-14 when he is at the top of his game. Anything can happen once you get into the playoffs, and the AFC isn't as strong as it used to be. How good was that 2009 team that went to the Super Bowl? It certainly wasn't near as talented as the 06 team that won it all, but Manning was so great that he carried us all season. He could have done that again. We would have had a *chance* to win it all again with Manning regardless of the pieces around him. If Manning stays healthy all year and continues to play like he did against Pitt, then any team with Manning has a chance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Non-Colts thread

                          Just because there were technically other choices, doesn't mean he had nothing but "little choice". Sure keeping Manning was technically an option, it was a choice, but it was not the correct choice for long-term success, on a number of fronts. It was the correct choice for short-term success.

                          The short-term call is also the easiest... the easiest to execute, the easiest to sell to fans; it's just easier.

                          Irsay, like Donnie Walsh did when he drafted Reggie over Steve Alford, made the tough call. Knowing it wouldn't be an easy sell, he pulled it anyway, because he knew in the long run it was the correct path.

                          It doesn't feel like the correct path to emotional over-reacting fans who want to jump off a cliff after one game. I was talking people off the cliff after Manning's first game, too, lol... but I felt back then Manning was the correct choice, we just had to be patient and let him grow. The number of threads started after game 1 saying we should've drafted Ryan Leaf was staggering.... and ultimately assinine as we all know.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-11-2012, 10:54 AM.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Re: Non-Colts thread

                            One of the things I admire of Irsay and I don't like about Simon is that Irsay knows when to say goodbye and in Simon's case(Pacers case) they love to keep players until their wheels fall off, you have to admire an owner that makes those tough decisions, not only they did it with Peyton but they have done it to a bunch of players and fans favorites too.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Non-Colts thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I agree 100% that Polian did a pretty lousy job from 2007 onward.

                              However, I do disagree that Irsay had "little choice" but to do what he did. He could have kept Manning and traded the Luck pick for a massive haul of assets that could have fixed the holes in this team. I'm not debating whether it would have been the right move or not, but it could have been done. Everyone acts like that renewing Manning's contract would have been armageddon for the Colts franchise, yet we were told by Irsay himself that it was a friendly deal when Manning initially signed it in July 2011.

                              The main reason we only won 2 games last year was because we had a rotation of QB's who did not belong in the NFL. Having an average NFL quarterback (or maybe playing Dan O more) would have left us with about 5 wins on the season instead of 2. We competed hard early on before the losing began to take a serious mental toll. Polian's biggest fault was completely neglecting the backup QB position and just assuming that Manning would always be around, but that's understandable to an extent given that Manning was an iron man.

                              I like Luck and think that the future will be bright with him. I can certainly sympathize with Irsay in that he had a very tough decision. But I just don't buy all this talk that the Colts could never have won another SB with Manning had he returned here. We could have sold the number 1 pick for a king's ransom and immediately drafted players who would have filled voids. Manning alone is worth 10 wins in a down year (2010) and 12-14 when he is at the top of his game. Anything can happen once you get into the playoffs, and the AFC isn't as strong as it used to be. How good was that 2009 team that went to the Super Bowl? It certainly wasn't near as talented as the 06 team that won it all, but Manning was so great that he carried us all season. He could have done that again. We would have had a *chance* to win it all again with Manning regardless of the pieces around him. If Manning stays healthy all year and continues to play like he did against Pitt, then any team with Manning has a chance.
                              But that's the other piece of the puzzle... Manning staying healthy is a gamble. Manning's age complicated things.

                              A true contender should be able to tread water and manage to hover around 500 without their starting QB. The team did have some leads last season and the defense failed to hold those leads. Irsay couldn't ignore that either.

                              There was never going to be a bright short term answer that didn't have negative long term implications. The only thing I can blame Irsay for is trusting Polian for too long. I'm convinced Manning would've still been the Colts QB if this team would've had proper management for the final half of Manning's career.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Non-Colts thread

                                Yea the team around Manning, the contract obligations... it just felt like Polian went to pasture in his last three years, after being a front office stud for a decade before 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

                                Working...
                                X