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

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

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Yes, he has said that. For the thousandth time, he has also said that he might be back this season.

    I would think the latest comments trump previous comments, but I guess not.

    When has he said he might be back this season?

    IIRC, this is the last interview he gave (November 3):

    http://www.wthr.com/story/15951998/m...type=printable

    "We're still waiting for the fusion to take place, it's still going slow with that and we still have some issues with the nerve and the regeneration of the nerve," Manning said. "There's really not a schedule, a timeline of where I am."

    and

    "I miss playing, I really do. If I get cleared to play and I'm good enough, would I play? Absolutely," he said. "I'd love to because that's how I'm wired, that's my job and I love my job.

    "If the doctor says you can go, then I'd like to do that," Manning added later.



    I don't interpret the above statement as him saying he "might" play this season. To me, it sounds like a more hypothetical statement along the lines of "Of course I'd play if they said I could." But he's not saying that he "might' be back this season.

    and

    "If I'm at a level where I'm cleared to practice, then the greatest venue to see where you are is on the practice field," Manning said.

    Again, he's saying he'd clearly like to play if he could. But he's not saying that he "might' be back.

    People focus on the neck having not fused yet because it is a definite concrete statement. The fusion comment trumps everything else. Nothing Manning has said is as definitive as the neck not having fused as of November 3. To the best of my knowledge, this is the last time he spoke publicly on the matter. I don't interpret any of his comments in that article to mean that he "might' play this season. I see statements along the lines of "of course I'd like to play if I could", but that's not the same as "There's a chance I might play."

    You read his comment about the neck not having fused along with the fact that he would have to take time to throw and practice before playing in a game and it makes it pretty easy for fans to say that he isn't coming back this season. It's not exactly a bold prediction. No one is professing to know as much as his surgeons. This is a message board that revolves around speculation and opinions from fans. Instead, we are making what I think are reasonable inferences from the information that we've been given. How could we not talk about something as big as this?

    Comment


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

      "Maybe he could be back this year," Eli told USA TODAY. "I don't know if that's the smart thing under the circumstances, but I expect him to be back next year."
      http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ck-this-year/1


      I was listening to JMV the day after Eli made those comments, and he talked about how Peyton had said the same things about two weeks prior, and he (JMV) didn't understand why Eli's comments were getting traction and Peyton's didn't.

      But still, they've always held that line that he could be back by the end of the year. That's why Peyton wasn't placed on IR. If they weren't interested in getting him back on the field, they would have put him on IR and openned up a roster spot.

      EDIT: And once again, I was specifically talking to Bball's assertion that there wasn't any possibility of Manning being back this year. He's said it quite a few times, like how there isn't a doctor that will clear him by seasons end.

      You're applying my comments to a wider base than I intended.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Wouldn't you agree that game speeds are a little different than practice speeds?

        Pretty much every player coming off serious injury is slowly rolled out. They aren't given the green light and given as many minutes as they were prior to their injury. They're brought on at a slower pace to see how their body handles the game, rather than how they're handling practice.

        This situation isn't any different.

        Even pitchers go from game simulations to the minor leagues, before they're brought back up to the majors.

        You can't fully replicate a game. There's no substituting it.

        EDIT: I'm not even saying he should play. I'm saying that it's way too early to making the decision now, one way or the other.

        Of course the speeds are different. But Manning being able to pick up the speed of the game isn't going to be your ultimate concern. He'll figure that out eventually if he plays.

        The concern obviously is whether he will physically be able to still throw the ball. How much extra info will an actual game give you as opposed to him throwing in a controlled environment? More obviously, but is it enough to justify the risks of him playing for a win-less team? He would probably look pretty sloppy by Peyton standards, so how much could you really get from it anyway?

        If you played him a couple games this season, then he would play those games and not play again until the preseason in August. So how beneficial would a couple of sloppy games be for him in the long run? Would the benefit outweigh the risk of him getting hurt for a team going nowhere this season?

        If he's healthy and has all of training camp and preseason next year than I think he'll be fine. I don't think playing in a couple of games 8 months prior where he was rushed out without little time to practice/prepare is going to matter one way or another in a year from now (if he's ultimately healthy, of course).

        I'm not denying that it could show you more than a controlled environment, but I don't know if it could show you enough to justify the risks.

        Comment


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

          I don't know either. But at the same time, if he's told that the risks are minimal, which is also a possibility, why wouldn't you want to see him on the field this season?

          Once again, I'm not saying Peyton SHOULD play. I'm saying there's no reason to make a decision now. Any decision.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            He has a meeting with his doctors on December 1. So that should all but answer if there is a chance that he can play this season. If his neck still hasn't fused then there is clearly no way he would be able to play within a month.

            If we find out that his neck still hasn't fused then I'm going to start becoming very very worried about his future here given that we have to make a decision on him in just three months.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I don't know either. But at the same time, if he's told that the risks are minimal, which is also a possibility, why wouldn't you want to see him on the field this season?

              Once again, I'm not saying Peyton SHOULD play. I'm saying there's no reason to make a decision now. Any decision.
              For the reasons I've stated and restated. I'm not sure how you can keep ignoring those and fall back only on the medical. Or how you seem to be invalidating or ignoring the reasons I'm giving you.

              I obviously think they are some fairly strong arguments for not seeing Manning this season on the field.

              If it was game 2 of the season I'd have a harder time disagreeing with you. Or even if we were 5-5 right now or with some record that has the playoffs as a mathematical possibility I could see your point.

              As it is, I'm not sure why you'd debate any of this except to say you'd understand if Manning actually played a game or two this season.

              In a world of 'you never knows' Manning could play this season. But the risk would be questionable on any number of levels and none of them would have to involve his neck being reinjured.

              There is more to lose than gain by Manning playing this season. IMHO
              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: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                If the Colts trotted him out as the starter, and they played theirselves out of the #1 pick, then I'll help you organize the mob.

                But I don't think they'll do that. Chris Mortensen reported Sunday that if he did play, it would be in limited situations, like the red zone.

                If Peyton Manning plans to retire he's not doing it very well. Chris Mortensen (via Coltzilla) reported that Manning may indeed be able to return this season: When they returned, Mort said that Peyton’s next checkup is expected to reveal that the fusion is complete, which doctors believe will lead to a “better nereve regeneration.” He went on to say that if Manning can do it, sources say he plans to play in “controlled circumstances such as directing a red zone offense and – yes – even in a real game before the season ends.” Per information shared earlier this season, Peyton’s checkups are scheduled every 4 weeks, putting the next one on or around December 1.
                http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articl...return/8233210
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  If the Colts trotted him out as the starter, and they played theirselves out of the #1 pick, then I'll help you organize the mob.

                  But I don't think they'll do that. Chris Mortensen reported Sunday that if he did play, it would be in limited situations, like the red zone.


                  http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articl...return/8233210
                  Red zone is where Manning could be easily in serious jeopardy. Why does this seem preposterous to me?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    Red zone is where Manning could be easily in serious jeopardy. Why does this seem preposterous to me?
                    THe Colts won't touch the red zone thats why..

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      THe Colts won't touch the red zone thats why..
                      Well done!

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        For the reasons I've stated and restated. I'm not sure how you can keep ignoring those and fall back only on the medical. Or how you seem to be invalidating or ignoring the reasons I'm giving you.

                        I obviously think they are some fairly strong arguments for not seeing Manning this season on the field.

                        If it was game 2 of the season I'd have a harder time disagreeing with you. Or even if we were 5-5 right now or with some record that has the playoffs as a mathematical possibility I could see your point.

                        As it is, I'm not sure why you'd debate any of this except to say you'd understand if Manning actually played a game or two this season.

                        In a world of 'you never knows' Manning could play this season. But the risk would be questionable on any number of levels and none of them would have to involve his neck being reinjured.

                        There is more to lose than gain by Manning playing this season. IMHO
                        Agreed. At this stage, it isn't rational for Peyton to play a single snap. I don't care if he wants to get out there. It's not just about him. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to lose having Peyton play a single snap the rest of the season. Beyond the fact he would be rusty and not 100% healthy, the playoffs are out of reach and the games are virtually meaningless for this franchise. Imagine him playing in a meaningless game against the Patriots and be paralyzed for life. Even if he's not paralyzed, he's getting older and an old QB with a serious neck issue is not a good situation for any game. He really needs to get behind the mic and move on IMHO...

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Agreed. At this stage, it isn't rational for Peyton to play a single snap. I don't care if he wants to get out there. It's not just about him. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to lose having Peyton play a single snap the rest of the season. Beyond the fact he would be rusty and not 100% healthy, the playoffs are out of reach and the games are virtually meaningless for this franchise. Imagine him playing in a meaningless game against the Patriots and be paralyzed for life. Even if he's not paralyzed, he's getting older and an old QB with a serious neck issue is not a good situation for any game. He really needs to get behind the mic and move on IMHO...
                          There's just no point. Any talk from Eli about a potential comeback this year is just his younger bro trying to put an obligatory positive light on a tough, forgettable season for his brother, nothing more.

                          There's 5 weeks left in the season and the guy hasn't even been cleared to practice. At worst, it puts the guy physically at risk for a really bad injury that affects him for the rest of his life. At best, it wins the team meaningless games and potentially ruins a golden opportunity for a once in every 10 years QB prospect.

                          Talk about pointless victories for an NBA lottery team during the end of the season, this would be worse and even more pointless. Absolutely no benefit to seeing Manning on the field again this year, for anyone.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Agreed. At this stage, it isn't rational for Peyton to play a single snap. I don't care if he wants to get out there. It's not just about him. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to lose having Peyton play a single snap the rest of the season. Beyond the fact he would be rusty and not 100% healthy, the playoffs are out of reach and the games are virtually meaningless for this franchise. Imagine him playing in a meaningless game against the Patriots and be paralyzed for life. Even if he's not paralyzed, he's getting older and an old QB with a serious neck issue is not a good situation for any game. He really needs to get behind the mic and move on IMHO...
                            Besides with so many unknowns and so many other team deficits Manning just costs too much.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              Besides with so many unknowns and so many other team deficits Manning just costs too much.
                              Peyton might be my favorite Indiana sports figure of all time and only part of that is because of his accomplishments. I could go on and on about Peyton Manning, but honestly, I want Peyton to go out in style and that means knowing when to quit.

                              Knowing that his young children need him healthy. Knowing that his team and its fans are better served finding his replacement given his age and injury situation. Knowing that he's done everything he needs to do to secure a spot with the greatest QB's of all time. Knowing that the talent on this team has thinned and it's not built for another run, at least for awhile. I hope he makes the right decision and realizes that there is more to life than being on the field...and that if he still wants to be involved he will have ample opportunities to grow his legacy off the field too.

                              Comment


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

                                I don't think we can go wrong...
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X