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

Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

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

  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Fair point. Few would argue that Peyton is one of the most clutch quarterbacks in regular season history. The wins Luck pulled out in the 4th quarter this year were the type of wins that Manning has had throughout his career.

    I would wager any amount of money though that Luck doesn't have to wait until his sixth season to win a playoff game like Manning did. It's a shame that Manning has struggled in the playoffs so much throughout his career. When he won the Super Bowl six years ago, I really thought the sky was the limit for him and that he'd make a serious run at being the greatest of all time since he was only 31 years old at the time. He got the Patriot monkey off of his back and finally won that elusive championship, so I figured nothing was in his way. But he hasn't faced the Pats in the playoffs since, yet has continued to struggle. It's disappointing that he's only won two playoff games since XLI. Obviously it's not all his fault, but you have to lay a decent chunk of the blame on him for that record, especially since he gets all of the accolades when his teams succeed.
    I will say this...Peyton has some of the WORST LUCK in Playoff history.

    --Saturday his defense gives up a 70 harder with 30 secs
    --Tim Jennings gives up a deep completion late in the 4th, then Caldwell calls a TO that allows the jets to kick a late FG as opposed to going for a TD
    --Hank Baskett
    --Ricky Williams fumbled against the chargers at the goal line, Marvin Harrison fumbles on the red zone, defense can't stop Billy Volek
    --defense couldn't stop Darren Sproles

    That's his last 5 playoff losses. Obviously he could've done more, but to say he's "lost" these games is false. I understand the QB gets all the blame and all the praise, but when compared to a Tom Brady or even a Big Ben, 18 has had some poor poor luck

    Comment


    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

      Don't forget Big Ben tackling Nick Harper and several key Mike V FG misses, in that game and in OT against Dan Marino waaaay early in his career.

      Comment


      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        I will say this...Peyton has some of the WORST LUCK in Playoff history.

        --Saturday his defense gives up a 70 harder with 30 secs
        --Tim Jennings gives up a deep completion late in the 4th, then Caldwell calls a TO that allows the jets to kick a late FG as opposed to going for a TD
        --Hank Baskett
        --Ricky Williams fumbled against the chargers at the goal line, Marvin Harrison fumbles on the red zone, defense can't stop Billy Volek
        --defense couldn't stop Darren Sproles

        That's his last 5 playoff losses. Obviously he could've done more, but to say he's "lost" these games is false. I understand the QB gets all the blame and all the praise, but when compared to a Tom Brady or even a Big Ben, 18 has had some poor poor luck
        You make some fair points but I have to disagree about the "poor luck" factor. First of all, when you fail to put points on the board as a QB, you open yourself up to those type of bad luck situations. If Peyton would have come through more often, those freaky plays wouldnt have mattered.
        Also, if everything has to go right for you to win, then good luck with that. A QB cant have everything go right all the time. Brady and Big Ben went out and won the games and didnt put themselves in a situation where a fluke play gets them beat. Also, neither of them would lose a playoff game when they get 2 returns for TD's.

        Comment


        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

          Originally posted by Ransom View Post
          Don't forget Big Ben tackling Nick Harper and several key Mike V FG misses, in that game and in OT against Dan Marino waaaay early in his career.

          Yeah, but Pitt was screwed when the Polamalu pick was overturned. It should have never come down to the Vandershank. Manning didn't play great in that game and should have handed it off to Edge more.

          The loss in Miami in the 2000-01 playoffs was not against Dan Marino. Jay Fiedler was the Dolphins QB in that game. Marino retired after the 1999 season.

          http://www.pro-football-reference.co...0012300mia.htm
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-14-2013, 10:50 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            I will say this...Peyton has some of the WORST LUCK in Playoff history.

            --Saturday his defense gives up a 70 harder with 30 secs
            --Tim Jennings gives up a deep completion late in the 4th, then Caldwell calls a TO that allows the jets to kick a late FG as opposed to going for a TD
            --Hank Baskett
            --Ricky Williams fumbled against the chargers at the goal line, Marvin Harrison fumbles on the red zone, defense can't stop Billy Volek
            --defense couldn't stop Darren Sproles

            That's his last 5 playoff losses. Obviously he could've done more, but to say he's "lost" these games is false. I understand the QB gets all the blame and all the praise, but when compared to a Tom Brady or even a Big Ben, 18 has had some poor poor luck

            The onside kick certainly turned the tide of the Super Bowl and gave New Orleans a massive jolt, but there were still plenty of opportunities for the Colts to win that game. When New Orleans scored a touchdown on the drive after the onside kick, they took a 13-10 lead. The Colts immediately responded with a touchdown drive to take a 17-13 lead with about 6 minutes left in the third quarter. We wouldn't score a single point for the rest of the game. The offense deserves a decent chunk of the blame, especially since they served up New Orleans with a pick 6.

            Comment


            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Yeah, but Pitt was screwed when the Polamalu pick was overturned. It should have never come down to the Vandershank. Manning didn't play great in that game and should have handed it off to Edge more.

              The loss in Miami in the 2000-01 playoffs was not against Dan Marino. Jay Fiedler was the Dolphins QB in that game. Marino retired after the 1999 season.

              http://www.pro-football-reference.co...0012300mia.htm

              Good catch on the Marino error. You beat me to it. Also, I forgot about the bad call on the Polamalu pick.
              I still go back to my previous point concerning the lack of production being the problem for Manning and not bad luck. The Colts offense put up 17points against Miami in that OT playoff loss. The defense held Miami to 17 points in regulation. In the Pittsburgh loss, Pitt only scored 21 - a very winable game if the offense did its job. We need to also remember that the majority of $$$$ was always spent on the offense to give Manning multiple weapons. Harrison, Edge, and Clark were all elite until age and injury came in to play.

              Comment


              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Yeah, but Pitt was screwed when the Polamalu pick was overturned. It should have never come down to the Vandershank. Manning didn't play great in that game and should have handed it off to Edge more.
                And was it 2 long pass plays or 3 instead of taking a shorter throw and trying to get closer before we ran out of downs and put Vandershank on the field?
                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: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  And was it 2 long pass plays or 3 instead of taking a shorter throw and trying to get closer before we ran out of downs and put Vandershank on the field?
                  Yeah I think he tried to hit Wayne in the endzone, IIRC.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    The point was that Peyton has had a tendency to force some things his entire career. Clean that up a little more and maybe his playoff record improves...
                    You really think so?

                    Player A: 524 completions 733 attempts 71.5% 5629yds 41tds 20INTs 8fumbles
                    Player B: 481 completions 761 attempts 63.2% 5679yds 32tds 21INTS 3fumbles

                    That breaks down to (Player A) 22.78 of 31.87, 244.74yds, 1.78tds, 0.87INTS per playoff game
                    ..............................(Player B) 24.05 of 38.05, 283.95yds, 1.60tds, 1.05INTS per playoff game


                    People tend to remember Peyton's bad playoff performances, and forget that he's had some great ones go offset them.

                    At the end of the day, I agree, wins means more than any empty stats, but PM is a pretty good playoff QB.
                    Last edited by Since86; 01-14-2013, 12:01 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                      I'll throw Player C in the mix as well.

                      460 completions, 734 attempts, 5772yds, 38tds, 21INTS

                      20/36.7 for 62.27%, 250.96yds, 1.65tds 0.91INTs per playoff game.

                      I concede that Players A and C have better stats, but A&C are known as two of the best (if not the best two) playoff QBs of all time. While Player B is known as someone that chokes in the playoffs. Is the difference between the stats really that significant to think that Player B's team playoff struggles fall on his shoulders, while all the rings between A&C are because they're just so good?

                      A - Tom Brady
                      B - Peyton Manning
                      C - Joe Montana
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                        I'd still be very happy with either Peyton or Tom behind Center for a Playoff game.

                        Denver failed Peyton more than he failed them, IMO.

                        Hey, maybe I'm just a Manning apologist, though.
                        Super Bowl XLI Champions
                        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                        Comment


                        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                          That was still a terrible throw and read on Peyton's part though on the pick. I don't know what he was thinking there. That's never been a good throw for him.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            That's all a bunch of if's and's and but's. Luck WAS available. It most certainly had a hand in his decision. I also don't buy your "tool" logic --- that's mostly your own perception. Show me the tweets where he was damning Manning to be damaged goods. I don't remember that, and I follow Irsay. The only slightly agitated tweets he threw Manning's way was when Manning went public with some stuff and Irsay said he needed to keep it private.

                            The team needed to be cleaned out --- why would he keep Manning around? Why would Manning want to stick around on a rebuilding project, and take a huge hit himself against the salary? You're damning Irsay and not looking at Manning himself, who publically portrayed one image when all along I believed he wanted out for his own career. I don't blame him one bit. It could also be argued that Manning signed an extension without disclosing the full details of his condition to Irsay. It's all a bunch of woulda coulda shoulda --- but to put it all on Irsay is not the correct line of thinking, if you ask me. These guys are both power players and capable of handling their own business.

                            In the end, it was an amicable departure, and it worked out the best for both parties, so being bitter about it is just pointless. The only regret I have is that Manning couldn't have retired here, but I also realize we would rode him into oblivion and likely set us back a good 5-10 years into developing our next competitive team.

                            I guess you must've missed the Rob Lowe tweet about Peyton retiring etc and given how he was Irsay's friend he got that from somewhere.. regardless I found Irsay tweeting to be rather cringeworthy in general especially when the Colts had their losing streak and he seemed to be rattled easily over it. And in SB week how if Manning wasn't healthy he wouldn't bring him back etc. really he would've been better served saying nothing same for Manning but it was obvious he was driving down his stock.

                            That being said regardless of what I may think of him I'm still a fan of the Colts and he's made good decisions thus far I just wish he wouldn't tweet but that's just my general issue with Twitter more than anything.

                            Of course Manning wanted out but he's a player I hold them to different standards than owners every player knows how expendable they are they come and go but he never promised that Manning would be a Colt for life etc. Irsay did that.

                            I just saw how the owner of the Niners handled Montana/Young and the Packers Favre/Rodgers and found it to be far better than Jimbo go figure.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                              Since,
                              Don't your posts just confirm Peyton has fallen short in the playoffs both in wins and in stats (at least in regards to him being arguably the GOAT)?
                              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: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                                Barely lagging behind two guys that get pretty much all the attention as the best two postseason QBs of all time, confirms Peyton's postseason struggles?

                                I think it confirms that Peyton's performance isn't the driving force of why the Colts struggled for so many years. Any QB not named Brady or Montana would love to have those statistics.

                                EDIT: I think Peyton is the GOAT, but I understand why people think otherwise. I just think when you look at the entire body of work each player has given, and not over-inflate team success, Peyton gets the edge. I don't think if you swapped out Brady for Manning that what happened in the post season would flip as well.
                                Last edited by Since86; 01-14-2013, 02:36 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X