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

Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

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

  • #46
    Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    It's not 100% Peyton'll ever play again, let alone next season.
    Well, what kind of odds will you give me then that he does play? I'm willing to bet a considerable sum that he will. He had receivers saying before the end of last year that he had his fastball back and was throwing with some zip. I think this is as close to a no brainer (the 100%) that could exist. Saturday said he will play this too..... He would have passed the physical with any other team than the Colts at the end of the season. They don't want to see him throw...

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

      It's 100% Manning wants to play this next season.

      It's 100% he's going to try and play this next season.

      It is not 100% he'll be able to play at the same level if he does play.

      It is not 100% that the issues won't return at some point, possibly during preseason, maybe in a year or two.

      It is not 100% that even if Manning is able to regain form in time to start the season that age and injury won't rob him of his effectiveness and former durability sooner rather than later.

      I'd love to see Manning effectively QBing the Colts next season with no injury concerns popping up and with a balanced squad on both sides of the ball. But there are a lot of 'ifs' and gambles for that scenario to play out. I also want to see the Colts able to have long term success again ASAP. For that scenario to be possible Manning will have to compromise to be involved in it.
      Last edited by Bball; 02-27-2012, 03:46 PM.
      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


      • #48
        Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

        I will stick by my prediction of at least four months ago that he retires.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          It's 100% Manning wants to play this next season.

          It's 100% he's going to try and play this next season.

          It is not 100% he'll be able to play at the same level if he does play.

          It is not 100% that the issues won't return at some point, possibly during preseason, maybe in a year or two.

          It is not 100% that even if Manning is able to regain form in time to start the season that age and injury won't rob him of his effectiveness and former durability sooner rather than later.

          I'd love to see Manning effectively QBing the Colts next season with no injury concerns popping up and with a balanced squad on both sides of the ball. But there are a lot of 'ifs' and gambles for that scenario to play out. I also want to see the Colts able to have long term success again ASAP. For that scenario to be possible Manning will have to compromise to be involved in it.

          Good post. You can't even think about trading away a possible once in a decade type player with all the "ifs" concerning Manning. Like you said even if he makes it back at a respectable level(which I doubt) he could have a setback at any time. I'm not even sure his arm will be able to take the reps through the week that it takes to get comfortable with all the timing routes.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
            Good post. You can't even think about trading away a possible once in a decade type player with all the "ifs" concerning Manning. Like you said even if he makes it back at a respectable level(which I doubt) he could have a setback at any time. I'm not even sure his arm will be able to take the reps through the week that it takes to get comfortable with all the timing routes.
            What??? Is is just a strength issue now. It will be either strong enough or it won't. Many people said it was strong enough in December but the Colts don't want to hear that. He might get a new injury but a "setback" is a near impossibility. The fusion is a success and he could play with that even in a big hit position like a running back or a linebacker. Luck isn't a once in a decade player. Like I have been saying he will have a LONG way to go to be even close to Cam Newton.... It is 50/50 that he will be a serviceable NFL QB. It is about one in then to two in ten that he ever becomes a star...... Many have come before and very few did that. Some teams, like the Patriots, won't even draft a QB high...... You may hate them and I do too but you have to admit they are a solidly run franchise and they just don't go off on five year rebuilding benders like the Colts are preparing to do......

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
              I will stick by my prediction of at least four months ago that he retires.
              Well, you were wrong then and you will certainly be wrong now.... He isn't doing all of that work for nothing......

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                NFL Number One Draft Picks are not Always Lucky


                Published: 21st Feb 12 1:39 am

                by J.M. Nicholas
                J.M. Nicholas

                3 Rants

                Jerry Lai-US PRESSWIRE


                For every Peyton Manning, there is a Tim Couch. For every Cam Newton, there is a JaMarcus Russell. Franchise quarterbacks are often the trendy choice for teams lucky (or unlucky) enough to get the first overall pick in the NFL Draft. Every number one draft pick is basically a roll of the dice, and quite often, those franchise quarterbacks end up crapping out.

                In the last 20 years, 12 quarterbacks have been selected number one overall in the NFL Draft. Out of those 12 selections, only six ever made the Pro Bowl. Three of those 12 quarterbacks reached the Super Bowl. Only two of those 12 actually played in and won the Super Bowl, and both were named Manning.

                Peyton Manning was drafted in 1998, and since then, 11 out of the last 14 NFL Drafts have begun with a quarterback going first overall. Several of these quarterbacks have made the playoffs recently. Some, like Alex Smith and Mike Vick, have seen a resurgence in their careers. In fact, other than the Manning brothers and Drew Bledsoe, Smith and Vick have been the only number one drafted quarterbacks in the last twenty years to reach the conference championship games. Bledsoe won a Super Bowl in 2002, as Tom Brady’s backup.

                A quarterback is only as good as the team that surrounds him. Obviously, if a team has the number one pick in the draft, chances are slim that the quarterback will be surrounded by an abundance of talent. Players like David Carr and Tim Couch were brought into tough situations, and were never really offered a good team to succeed with. Consequently, number one picks like JaMarcus Russell never developed into the players they were scouted to be. The truth is, the NFL Draft is a gamble, no matter who gets taken first overall. One draft pick does not make a good team. Success stems from structure, study, and even a little bit of luck.
                Last edited by OlBlu; 02-27-2012, 08:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  It is 100% that Manning will play this coming year. I am a Colts fan and I want to see them rebuild and keep winning. With Luck they lose for years to come while Manning will be going to playoffs with another team. There will be no shortage of offers to Peyton. I think the team should be more loyal to Peyton for all he has already done while Luck hasn't done squat and may never do anything. St. Louis is going to make out like a bandit trading the right to RGIII. If we were smart, we would do the same and take a QB later in the first or the early second round. The odds of success with that are just as good PLUS you have filled some holes at other positions where the risk is not so great. The Patriots never see any need to get the first rated QB but they are geared to winning every year and not going on five year rebuilding programs.......
                  Manning may play next season (not 100%) but highly unlikely he'd play at the level needed to lead a team anywhere. Given the squad the Colts will likely field, it would take more than just Manning in his prime to get this team anywhere. And Manning won't be anywhere near his prime based on reports and the fact he is getting old. So even IF Manning walks out on that field (and that's a big IF), he isn't going to be what he once was.

                  Colts are going to have some down years regardless of who is behind center. If we don't bring in a good QB soon (Luck or otherwise), those down years are going be followed by even more down years.

                  Unless some team is willing to overpay for the #1 pick (not a sure thing), then you take Luck or Griffin and build around them.
                  Last edited by Swingman; 02-27-2012, 07:17 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                    Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                    Manning may play next season (not 100%) but highly unlikely he'd play at the level needed to lead a team anywhere. Given the squad the Colts will likely field, it would take more than just Manning in his prime to get this team anywhere. And Manning won't be anywhere near his prime based on reports and the fact he is getting old. So even IF Manning walks out on that field (and that's a big IF), he isn't going to be what he once was.

                    Colts are going to have some down years regardless of who is behind center. If we don't bring in a good QB soon (Luck or otherwise), those down years are going be followed by even more down years.

                    Unless some team is willing to overpay for the #1 pick (not a sure thing), then you take Luck or Griffin and build around them.
                    Luck would get you the biggest haul of picks in the history of the NFL. Peyton will be back and some contender will pay the big bucks to get him and he WILL play like the Peyton of old. I really think he will play for four or five more years. Look how well Farve played in Minnesota the first year.... Perhaps his best season ever and Peyton is almost five years younger than Farve was then.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      Well, you were wrong then and you will certainly be wrong now.... He isn't doing all of that work for nothing......

                      With nerve regeneration some of it is out of his hands. Rehab can only go so far. It's very unpredictable and of coarse he's working hard what else is he supposed to do until it is absolutely certain one way or another that he can make it back or he can't. I still say he doesn't make it all the way back to 100% and that he won't play at anything less. The last thing I want to see is Peyton on the field a shell of his former self. If I end up being wrong I'll gladly be wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        Luck would get you the biggest haul of picks in the history of the NFL. Peyton will be back and some contender will pay the big bucks to get him and he WILL play like the Peyton of old. I really think he will play for four or five more years. Look how well Farve played in Minnesota the first year.... Perhaps his best season ever and Peyton is almost five years younger than Farve was then.
                        Willing to bet the Colts future on Manning being back and being just as good as he was prior to surgery?

                        I'm glad you aren't the GM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                          Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                          Willing to bet the Colts future on Manning being back and being just as good as he was prior to surgery?

                          I'm glad you aren't the GM.
                          Oh? Well I would have a boat load of picks to fix lots of positions and still get a first round QB. With my plan, the Colts compete and win for the next four to five years. With your plan, they will have more of these 2-14 and 3-13 seasons and they won't be competitive for several years. So you draft Luck and he turns out to be really good. He will be playing behind a bad offensive line with no really talented receivers to throw to. You will be fortunate if Luck ever plays a full season without serious injury. Manning will get rid of the ball faster behind that line and he will play every game for you. This is just my opinion that I value highly. The Colts will lose a lot of the fan base by the time they get competitive again. Your don't think that March 4 season ticket deadline has something to do with when this decision will be made? Grow up......

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                            With your plan, we'd have last year all over again and be in the same position for the next draft

                            Grow up? I'm just being realistic. I'm not placing all my hopes on Manning returning 100%.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                              RG3 is looking might impressive I like his mental edge along with leadership intangibles combo he has along with his ability to make all the throws and being able to make plays when the pocket is collapsing and staying in the pocket while taking hits. I think the Luck vs RG3 is a lot closer than people make it out to be. I think RG3 will be the better pro but both should be great.
                              Last edited by pacer4ever; 02-27-2012, 09:00 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                                Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                                With your plan, we'd have last year all over again and be in the same position for the next draft

                                Grow up? I'm just being realistic. I'm not placing all my hopes on Manning returning 100%.
                                I am not either. I come aways with a first round QB draft pick and lots of player in case Peyton is not 100%. You are the one putting all your hopes on Luck. Not a good bet to do that with ANY rookie QB.......

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X