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

2015 Offseason Thread

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

  • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    We do know that Manning regularly took less money than offered, right?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/sp...olts.html?_r=0
    That was also well into his career, after making more than $100 mil and after his previous contract had his deal right at the top with other players and had the most guaranteed money paid out to him. Also that contract he signed with the Colts was in the same offseason as his neck surgery.

    I mean the colts have been planning for it.
    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...deal-for-luck/

    Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the Colts are “working on the parameters of a blockbuster megadeal” for Luck, which could make him the highest-paid player in the NFL, at $25 million per year.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      We do know that Manning regularly took less money than offered, right?


      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/sp...olts.html?_r=0

      Yet none of that mattered a year later when Andrew Luck came onto the scene his contract wasn't guaranteed which is why I don't begrudge players for taking what they can get.

      Still a lot of $$$ for his position and at his age(at the time) I just find it laughable that you think Luck loves the game so much he wants to play for $1 if that were true more players would actually do it. They don't.

      To think or even expect that as ilive4sports put it 'naive'

      Comment


      • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

        Luck is already demanding a Toyota Highlander as part of the deal....
        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, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
          That was also well into his career, after making more than $100 mil and after his previous contract had his deal right at the top with other players and had the most guaranteed money paid out to him. Also that contract he signed with the Colts was in the same offseason as his neck surgery.

          I mean the colts have been planning for it.
          http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...deal-for-luck/
          That was just the last example. Manning has done it throughout his career. Pretty much every contract he ever signed has been for less than he was capable of signing for.

          EDIT:http://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentf...ver-the-years/
          The 2004 salary really rockets up the yearly average through Peyton's first 10 seasons, but it still shows the picture. Yes, $11M is a lot of money but it's still less than what he could have had, and what the Colts were offering. I don't think it's niave at all to think Luck would take less than offered. I don't think being the highest paid is something on Luck's wishlist. I could very well be wrong, but everything we're told about Luck the person says he'll look more big picture.

          EDIT2: I randomly selected 2007 as a year to compare Peyton's salary with the highest paid QB in the league. Marc Bulger at $17M
          http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...s-report_N.htm
          Last edited by Since86; 05-27-2015, 09:34 AM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            Yet none of that mattered a year later when Andrew Luck came onto the scene his contract wasn't guaranteed which is why I don't begrudge players for taking what they can get.

            Still a lot of $$$ for his position and at his age(at the time) I just find it laughable that you think Luck loves the game so much he wants to play for $1 if that were true more players would actually do it. They don't.

            To think or even expect that as ilive4sports put it 'naive'
            Wait. Let's back up here.

            Ace made a claim that he thought Luck would take less money. You pointed out that Mannning grew up with money, and that it didn't change him implying he took what was offered. I pointed out that Manning took less money than offered. You come back and tell me it doesn't matter, and that thinking Luck will is niave?

            And you honestly think I was being serious about the $1?
            Last edited by Since86; 05-27-2015, 09:11 AM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

              Here's a database for 00-09 on the top 25. You can change the filters to just QB's, if you're interested. But for example, PM was #16 paid QB in 2009, #6 in 2008, #3 in 2007, #6 in 2006, #64 in 2005, #1 in 2004, etc.

              http://content.usatoday.com/sportsda...sition/qb/2004
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Here's a database for 00-09 on the top 25. You can change the filters to just QB's, if you're interested. But for example, PM was #16 paid QB in 2009, #6 in 2008, #3 in 2007, #6 in 2006, #64 in 2005, #1 in 2004, etc.

                http://content.usatoday.com/sportsda...sition/qb/2004
                Manning took a massive $34.5 million dollar signing bonus in 2004, which is why his 2005 "salary" was so low.....and why his 2004 salary dwarfs everyone else. Yearly "Salary" has limited value here because quarterbacks/most good NFL players get massive signing bonuses. It's important to look at the deal as a whole. For example, Manning was only the 7th highest salaried quarterback in 2009 in large part because 4 other quarterbacks signed contracts that year and had massive signing bonuses.

                The bottom line is that the contract Manning signed in 2004 was massive at the time:

                Colts quarterback Peyton Manning has agreed to a landmark $99.2 million, seven-year contract that will pay him a league-record $14.17 million annually.

                There are any number of methods employed to determine the overall worth of an NFL contract, but by virtually all of the most recognized valuation standards, the Manning deal is clearly the most lucrative in NFL history. His average annual salary will dwarf those in the $100 million deals that quarterbacks Donovan McNabb and Brett Favre and others have signed in recent years.

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=1748909

                Most quarterbacks don't squeeze out every last cent because they want to give their team some salary breaks, but they still expect obscenely big deals. Luck might structure it to help the Colts out in certain aspects, but it's still going to be a huge contract that is likely historic.

                Comment


                • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                  I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying. And to be fair, you're not disagreeing with anything I said.

                  Yes, PM signed massive deals. Others signed even more massive deals. Luck will sign a massive deal. He probably won't sign the most massive deal offered.

                  And Peyton's total salary does dwarf most others. But that's for two reasons, #1 the sheer number of years he's been playing and #2 because the salary cap exploded during Peyton's tenure and has been increasing ever since. The salary cap difference between the 90s and the 00s is ginormous.



                  $71M in 2002 all the way to $109M in 2007. That's almost a 50% increase in 5years. 300+% increase in 17 years.
                  Last edited by Since86; 05-27-2015, 10:43 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Luck is already demanding a Toyota Highlander as part of the deal....
                    ....and a brand new flip-phone!

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Luck is already demanding a Toyota Highlander as part of the deal....
                      Irsay will lend him his. Straight ballin, from the private jet to the Highlander.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-27-2015, 03:58 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


                      • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Wait. Let's back up here.

                        Ace made a claim that he thought Luck would take less money. You pointed out that Mannning grew up with money, and that it didn't change him implying he took what was offered. I pointed out that Manning took less money than offered. You come back and tell me it doesn't matter, and that thinking Luck will is niave?

                        And you honestly think I was being serious about the $1?
                        No you assumed that I think Manning was all about $$$.

                        Yes I do think its naive to think Luck or any QB doesn't want $$$ just because he doesn't openly show it like other players or grew up rich doesn't mean he doesn't want it. He and Manning grew up with $$$ they still want it they aren't going to go "well I don't want too much $$$ because I was born rich". Its not just them its their families, agents etc to consider here.

                        I said before it didn't matter that Manning took less because in the end Irsay didn't have to pay for it he cut him so he could go for a younger cheaper alternative in Andrew Luck.

                        Luck will take what the market bears for him and it will be a lot.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          No you assumed that I think Manning was all about $$$.
                          Nope, no assumption.


                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          Manning grew up with $$$ still didn't change him wanting it(nor do I begrudge him of it after all I rather have it given to the player than an owner pocketing it for himself) or any other QB for that matter.

                          I don't get where people think Luck doesn't want to be paid what he's worth because he doesn't openly show it like others. That's what is agent is for and you know he wants to get paid.
                          It? Money. Peyton didn't want all the money that was offered, which is why he took less.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                            BasketballFan never said that Manning demanded every last possible cent. She said he wanted to get paid, which obviously be did judging by his gargantuan contracts. He's been worth every penny when you look at what a guy like Cutler gets paid.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              BasketballFan never said that Manning demanded every last possible cent. She said he wanted to get paid, which obviously be did judging by his gargantuan contracts. He's been worth every penny when you look at what a guy like Cutler gets paid.
                              She said he'd want to get paid "his worth." Manning didn't take his worth, he took less. The context of the conversation, taking less than offered, is pretty clear.

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              I don't doubt that Luck will be paid.... but to be honest, the kid has never shown a lot of interest in being filthy rich. He grew up with money; he's never mentioned his contract or even shown much interest in it.

                              I don't think Luck is all that concerned about being the highest paid player in history, even if he's completely capable of being so. I would not be surprised if his new deal is extremely reasonable and allows Indy some flexibility, because let's face it, signing a massive contract hamstrings the team and he's not all about that. He's a unique cat.

                              Also, Indy has always handsomely-rewarded it's top-flight QBs, so I'm not concerned about the Colts doing Luck in a raw way. They'll take care of him, when the time comes.
                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Manning grew up with $$$ still didn't change him wanting it(nor do I begrudge him of it after all I rather have it given to the player than an owner pocketing it for himself) or any other QB for that matter.

                              I don't get where people think Luck doesn't want to be paid what he's worth because he doesn't openly show it like others. That's what is agent is for and you know he wants to get paid.
                              I'm not sure how "naive" it can be when the very example of someone growing up rich and not really worrying about the contract, did exactly that for about 15yrs in Indy. Top flight QBs, like Manning and even Brady, taking less than their "worth" is actually quite normal. Neither Brady nor Manning made themselves the highest paid when they came up for contracts. They took less than what they were capable of, so it could be re-invested other places. Considering Luck's temperament, that is completely within the bounds of something he'd do.
                              Last edited by Since86; 05-28-2015, 10:52 AM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                I said before it didn't matter that Manning took less because in the end Irsay didn't have to pay for it he cut him so he could go for a younger cheaper alternative in Andrew Luck.
                                He "cut" him because there was a real risk Manning might never play again, or never be Peyton again. Especially with this happening in the twilight of his career. He didn't just "cut" him because Luck was the "younger cheaper alternative".

                                Manning might still have a miracle in him yet, but so far it's questionable whether he's capable of ever playing a full season and into the playoffs at a high level before 'something' happens that starts affecting his game.
                                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, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X