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 vs. Luck - What would you do?

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

  • #16
    Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

    Elway also had offers to play baseball.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

      Originally posted by RWB View Post
      Elway also had offers to play baseball.
      Exactly!

      Each situation is different and the leverage is different. ELways big complaint was that the Colts wouldn't allow him to be successful which is probably right.

      Lucks leverage is what? I am going back to college? I just have a hard time thinking some kid is going to bully Polain around on a situation like this.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

        And Luck has options to return to college. It's not about what option they have, but just having an option and using it as leverage. It might just very well be a bluff.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          Lucks leverage is what? I am going back to college? I just have a hard time thinking some kid is going to bully Polain around on a situation like this.
          Players try to bully GMs all the time, why would Luck be any different? Why would a team want to draft a player, that made it clear they didn't want to play there?

          I'm not saying it's going to happen, but you can't just write it off like it's not a possibility.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I'm not saying it's going to happen, but you can't just write it off like it's not a possibility.
            You have to take that risk.
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

              It's simple: You take the best QB prospect in over a decade and worry about everything else later. Just like when the Spurs already had Robinson but took a duplicate in Duncan.

              Manning is in his mid-30s and is coming off 3 neck surgeries. There isn't a time table as to when he'll ever play again. A team that is coming off a horrendous season and has shown massive holes at all positions on the field shouldn't bet all their chips that a guy of Manning's age and current injury problems is all of a sudden going to turn into his old self again the moment he gets back.......if he ever gets back at all.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                You have to take that risk.
                No you don't. Regardless, Luck doesn't fix the Colt's problems. Why would you miss out on getting a jump start fixing those other problems, AND miss out on your QB?

                That would be outright dumb.

                If, for some reason, Luck does go back to college, you look like a total fool.

                You trade the #1 pick and just stack up on draft picks. And besides, why wouldn't you just drop down and draft, say, Matt Barkley? He's having a great year, that is getting lost because of USC's postseason ban.

                I would much rather see the Colts jumpstart rebuilding their team, instead of swapping one QB for a different QB.

                EDIT: Once again, the whole conversation revolves around how healthy you think Manning will be. If he's gone for the rest of his career, then I really dont' care what option the Colts take.

                But if Luck starts saying how he doesn't want to play for Indy, then you've got to trade the pick. But I think he only does that, if Peyton comes back and is healthy enough to play next season.
                Last edited by Since86; 11-14-2011, 12:36 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  .

                  You trade the #1 pick and just stack up on draft picks. And besides, why wouldn't you just drop down and draft, say, Matt Barkley? He's having a great year, that is getting lost because of USC's postseason ban.

                  I would much rather see the Colts jumpstart rebuilding their team, instead of swapping one QB for a different QB.
                  So tell us, what's the asking price? What team is going to come to the plate with the offer we can't refuse? What happens if the only offer is two #1s and some 2nd rounders. We've already been drafting late in the first so I doubt anything thrown by a team as a second rounder is going to save us.

                  Actually if you're going to trade that pick then forget the draft picks. Obviously it's all or nothing for Peyton's last few years so give me your best players currently on your team and make the last efforts for some super bowls. If you're still saying no, I want the draft picks to build toward the future then I disagree whole heartedly about draft picks and want THE DRAFT PICK in Luck. You'll still get the 1st pick in each round this year and if you suck again next year you'll once again be picking higher in the draft.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                    As a closet Colts fan - trade him for the HOUSE, get as many picks and young guys as you can, and start your rebuild with Peyton (or even without Peyton) and work your way from there.

                    As a Redskins fan - PLEASE, DEAR GOD, DO NOT CALL DAN!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                      Peter King started answering that question weeks ago.

                      Not a lot of people would know, because there have been very few times in NFL history when a relatively sure-fire quarterback prospect such as Luck comes out in the draft. So I asked the only general manager in history (I believe) who has been in position twice to take the top quarterback in a quarterback-heavy draft: Ernie Accorsi. In 1983, he was the rookie GM with the Baltimore Colts who set a high price tag for John Elway. In 2004, he was the veteran GM of the Giants and juggled Eli Manning, Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger at the top of the draft, considering all and trading for Manning.

                      Accorsi told me he has seen Luck on TV but would be doing an injustice to scouting by having an opinion on Luck, the player. But he did tell me if Luck is in league with Elway as a prospect -- which is the widely held view of many scouts; not better, and maybe not as good, but in the same league -- then the Elway situation is a good barometer. Accorsi set a price tag of three first-round picks and two second-rounders for the first pick of the '83 draft, which certainly would be used on Elway. He never got the deal he wanted, so the Colts picked Elway No. 1.

                      But Baltimore owner Robert Irsay commandeered the trade negotiations for Elway once he found out signing him would cost $5 million over five years. (Exorbitant at the time, ridiculously reasonable in retrospect.) Irsay dealt Elway to Denver for the fourth pick in that year's draft (tackle Chris Hinton) plus Denver's first-round pick in 1984 and marginal quarterback prospect Mark Herrmann. Two ones and a backup quarterback, basically, for Elway. Turned out to be dirt-cheap compensation. Elway led the Broncos to five Super Bowls, winning two. "Five Super Bowls? You can't overpay for that,'' said Accorsi. "It's like overpaying for Joe DiMaggio. In retrospect, three ones and two twos would have been very fair. A bargain, really.''

                      I think three first-round picks for the first selection in the 2012 draft is more than fair if the team that earns that right is in a dealing mood. One of those picks would have to be in the top 10 of the 2012 draft. "If he's as good as everyone says he is, absolutely it's a realistic price,'' Accorsi said.

                      In 2004, Accorsi traded for Manning's rights with San Diego in a deal that essentially was two firsts, a third- and a fifth-, with one of the firsts being the fourth overall pick in that draft. (The picks were made, Manning by the Chargers and Philip Rivers by the Giants, and then swapped by the teams.)

                      But that's not a bad template for a Luck trade. Let's say the Rams have the first pick in the draft next year, but because they've got Sam Bradford, don't feel a need to take a quarterback. The Dolphins, let's say, are picking fourth. The negotiations would have to start with two ones, a three and a five, but I think they'd have to be ratcheted up in value. Luck, in 2012, will likely be much more of a sure thing than Manning or Rivers were in 2004.

                      But if I were the GM of any bad 2011 team, with any current or near-future quarterback need (and that includes Indianapolis, where the owner is already talking about a Peyton Manning-Luck tag-team for three or four years), I wouldn't take any offer for Luck. I'd sit there and pick him. When you don't have a quarterback, and you're in position to take the surest of things probably since Peyton Manning himself came out, you have to take Luck.

                      One last point: Pete Thamel of The New York Times asked Luck the other day about the rise of "Suck for Luck'' sentiment around the league. In other words, root for your team to lose so you'll be in position to take him. (Judy Battista wrote smartly about it Sunday in the Times.) Luck has another year of eligibility left at Stanford, but those close to him, and most NFL people I speak to, are virtually certain he'll come out for the 2012 draft. "I am aware of it,'' Luck told Thamel, regarding the sentiment of fans who want their teams to lose to have a shot to draft him next April. "I think it's stupid -- simply put.'' It may be, but that's not going to stop fans in Miami and Seattle and other locales from rooting for their teams to lose.


                      So you would probably end up trading that #1 pick for that teams top 10 pick, along with a second round pick and one or two later round draft picks. I would assume that those picks would all be in this years draft. Or at the very least, the second round draft pick would be this years.

                      Then you'd have two more drafts with two other first round draft selections.

                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        If, for some reason, Luck does go back to college, you look like a total fool.

                        You trade the #1 pick and just stack up on draft picks. And besides, why wouldn't you just drop down and draft, say, Matt Barkley? He's having a great year, that is getting lost because of USC's postseason ban.
                        Luck isn't going back to college. Maybe he might use that as a threat for whatever reason, but ultimately he's not going to play at Stanford next year. He redshirted his freshman year. He's now going to finish his degree this year and graduate. Luck is actually true to his word about being goody goody student athlete, and he's pretty much done with the student part by next June. He's not the type to just return to Stanford just to sit around and play football, tho I suppose it's conceivable he could take graduate classes while using his last year of eligibility.

                        But morever, next year the cupboard would be more bare at Stanford, as a lot of starters are graduating. Stanford would be more rebuilding than they would be reloading. And he's going to be 23 at the start of the next NFL season. Not over the hill by any means, but this is about one year on the old side as it is for an NFL rookie. His time is now.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                          If he graduates, he can transfer to any other school and enroll in a graduate program that Stanford doesn't offer, and he does not have to sit out a year.

                          Greg Paulus played basketball at Duke and then transferred to Syracuse to play football. So he's not limited to just Stanford.

                          But I agree it's highly unlikely he goes back to school, but I think it's because teams would move him rather than waiting to find out whether or not he will.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            And Luck has options to return to college. It's not about what option they have, but just having an option and using it as leverage. It might just very well be a bluff.
                            The problem is that option runs out by mid Jan when underclassmen have to pull out of the draft. If Manning doesn't touch the field by then and even if he did there will still be question marks about availability in 2012.

                            Its much more likely that Luck stays in the draft and ask for a trade if Manning will be brought back. Of course the Colts will want to trade Luck before the draft so they maximize his return value.

                            Trading down will be easier this year than in years past but you still have to have a partner. From picks 1-10 I can only see a 3-4 of teams willing to offer max return for Luck (Jags, Redskins, Miami, Minny)In the case of Minny and the Jags they already took high picks on Qbs last year. Those are pretty crappy teams to go to. Of course the COlts are a crappy team as well but the difference is that the COlts have actually had some success in the last decade.

                            Point is this won't be an easy decison for Luck and I think its more likely that he won't make a stink over it. In either case I hope Manning is back and whoever is traded if at all the max return is gotten for their services.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                              Let him learn behind Manning for a couple of years. Unless Manning wants to go, in which case by all means get as much as you can for him and put Luck out there immediately.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                If he graduates, he can transfer to any other school and enroll in a graduate program that Stanford doesn't offer, and he does not have to sit out a year.

                                Greg Paulus played basketball at Duke and then transferred to Syracuse to play football. So he's not limited to just Stanford.
                                ...

                                Why the hell would he want to do that? He loves Stanford, and Stanford would love to have him back for another year I'm sure. That makes no sense to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X