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

Peyton Manning press conference :(

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

  • #91
    Re: Peyton Manning press conference

    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
    I have actually watched him quite a bit, even live once. Beleive it or not, I do know how good he is.

    Maybe I undercut his worth, either way my point stands..................
    I really find this hilarious. The guy who the opposing defense completely designs their game plan around is only worth 4-6 wins. It's utterly preposterous.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Peyton Manning press conference

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I'm a little disappointed in the fans turning on Irsay for this decision. Reading comments at the Star it seems to be about 90%+ anti-Irsay. The thing is, I'm seeing almost 100% agreement with Irsay among sports journalists and football professionals. That's a massive disconnect.
      Of course the Journalists think its a great move, they get to cover the Manning free agency. I have seen a couple of writers or experts say that its a terrible decision and giant gamble.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Peyton Manning press conference

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        They could have rebuilt, while winning. It would have been the same situation as they've been in.

        Irsay, in his own words, called Peyton's deal "cap friendly." Unless he just didn't realize that Wayne and Co. were FA, then he knew he was going to be in this situation this year. He thought he could work around it, obviously, or maybe BBall Fan is right and he's back on the pills and they've made him just dumb as a box of rocks.

        The same deal is cap friendly one summer, and then magically becomes uncap friendly the next summer? Uh, okay....

        So if you thought Peyton was gonna be back, that his deal was cap friendly, then I think it's safe to assume that Irsay thought he could re-sign those FAs.

        If you re-sign them, you're looking at practically the same exact team you've had, while just getting in new blood through the draft.

        Peyton has carried the Colts for how many years now? I don't suddenly think he's going to be fed up with it.
        Don't be fooled by the IRsay PR campaign. Peytons deal isn't cap freindly. ITs still a 16-20 million cap hit every year.

        I honestly believe IRsay never thought he would be in this position when PM contract was signed. I also believe Wayne was going to be gone regardless and Garcon was the one they were going to try to resign. Mathis deal could work under the cap or a franchise tag so he could be back with a back loaded contract.

        Either way they never thought their first pick would be Luck or a QB. If it was say the 5 or 10th pick then I see them going WR to replace Wayne.

        THe overall point is that there is nothing cap friendly about paying 17 million dollars in cap money then paying the backup 3-4 million on top of that.

        When you fire the coach, GM, and president its a rebuilding process. Sure PM could be apart of that but the team talent wise is worse off than many others that will offer him a contract.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Peyton Manning press conference

          It's not a PR campaign. I heard Irsay on the radio with my own two ears before the contract was even signed saying that it wasn't even a question on whether or not Peyton would be back. That Irsay was willing to give him anything he wanted, because of how much he meant to the organization.

          Then the contract was signed and Peyton starts talking about how he turned down money.

          That's not a PR campaign. That's reality.

          Either Irsay had a plan to keep the Colts together this offseason, and just scrapped the idea, or he's just a plain idiot and doesn't have the capacity to look further than 8 months ahead.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Peyton Manning press conference

            It would've also been a tremendous gamble on the Colts' part to pick up Manning's option.

            The choice Irsay was faced with wasn't "start winning again next year with Peyton Manning for the next several years" versus 'rolling the dice that Luck is the next Peyton Manning and have a repeat of the last decade for 10+ more years'.

            The choice was whether the team in it's current condition could improve enough to be in contention if it took on Manning's large contract and how that would play out if Manning did not return to long term health and his former status.... versus renegotiating with Manning... versus just taking Luck and rebuilding from there.

            If I was in Irsay's shoes I probably would've picked up Manning's option and immediately regretted going with my heart over logic and spent the summer sweating Manning's health and durability and wondering what a 35 yr old Manning's career longevity really is in both the best case scenario and the worst case scenario.

            And then I'd be hoping Luck is a bust for whoever got him after I traded the pick because if I was going to make a mistake I'd prefer it be with sticking with Manning.

            But if Luck is not a bust.... and Manning doesn't return to form or only has a year or two of being close to his old self.... I'd realize the hole I just created for the franchise and it wouldn't be good.

            Even if Luck is a bust for the Colts it won't sink them for years because they can still afford to shore up the rest of the team and utilize the high picks a bust at QB likely nets them. But the Manning contract, even if healthy, would be tough to build around... and if not healthy... Oh my...
            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


            • #96
              Re: Peyton Manning press conference

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              It's not a PR campaign. I heard Irsay on the radio with my own two ears before the contract was even signed saying that it wasn't even a question on whether or not Peyton would be back. That Irsay was willing to give him anything he wanted, because of how much he meant to the organization.

              Then the contract was signed and Peyton starts talking about how he turned down money.

              That's not a PR campaign. That's reality.

              Either Irsay had a plan to keep the Colts together this offseason, and just scrapped the idea, or he's just a plain idiot and doesn't have the capacity to look further than 8 months ahead.
              Irsay had a plan to keep this team together then it went 2-14 and got the chance to sign the next franchise QB. Thats what changed and its the right move to take the next franchise QB especially since the 2-14 record showed that a massive overall was needed AND your QB had 4 neck procedures and will be 36 years old.

              Plans change do to circumstances and its just that simple.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 03-08-2012, 02:42 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                Irsay's plan was to trust the job Bill Polian was doing. Under no circumstance was the team supposed to threaten for 0-16 even if Manning was lost for the season IMHO. The cupboard wasn't supposed to be bare.
                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


                • #98
                  Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                  And BTW.... I still believe if Manning had wanted to remain a Colt and was willing to compromise, Irsay would've obliged him. So this all isn't on Irsay imo.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Irsay's plan was to trust the job Bill Polian was doing. Under no circumstance was the team supposed to threaten for 0-16 even if Manning was lost for the season IMHO. The cupboard wasn't supposed to be bare.
                    I really don't know why people don't get this. I mean how many times in life do you plan something then it all goes south and you have to adjust some things to get the ship righted.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      I really don't know why people don't get this. I mean how many times in life do you plan something then it all goes south and you have to adjust some things to get the ship righted.
                      I don't know... And I also don't believe any team threatening to go 0-16 and finally managing 2-14 is one player away from truly contending for a SB.... no matter who that player is.
                      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: Peyton Manning press conference

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        I don't know... And I also don't believe any team threatening to go 0-16 and finally managing 2-14 is one player away from truly contending for a SB.... no matter who that player is.
                        This could most definitely be the case if that player is the best QB in the game and you have no back up worthy of actually being a back up. QB is the most important position on the field.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          I really don't know why people don't get this. I mean how many times in life do you plan something then it all goes south and you have to adjust some things to get the ship righted.
                          It's not that we don't understand. It's that if there was EVER going to be an exception, this is the exception.

                          If it's not Peyton Manning, the whole conversation is moot beause no one would care.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            I don't know... And I also don't believe any team threatening to go 0-16 and finally managing 2-14 is one player away from truly contending for a SB.... no matter who that player is.
                            So which players from the 2010 team to the 2011 team is reponsible for the rest of the losses?

                            The defense was statistically similiar from previous years. The only thing that changed on the offense was who was taking snaps.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              If people don't understand the logic behind what has transpired now, just wait until Manning takes a solid team deep into playoffs and challenges for a SB. ...as if that means he could've done the same with this team.

                              Just bc people dont agree with the decision, doesnt mean they dont understand it. Just a difference of opinions.
                              Last edited by CreekShow; 03-08-2012, 03:36 PM.
                              I Bleed Blue

                              Comment


                              • Re: Peyton Manning press conference

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                So which players from the 2010 team to the 2011 team is reponsible for the rest of the losses?

                                The defense was statistically similiar from previous years. The only thing that changed on the offense was who was taking snaps.
                                I thought the defense took a step back last year so I looked it up.

                                Total points scored against the Colts..
                                2011 - 430
                                2010 - 388
                                2009 - 307
                                2008 - 298

                                Call me crazy but I think something is trending there. Manning can cover up some losses but this team is older more injury prone and less talented on the defensive side of the ball IMO.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X