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

Andrew Luck!!!!

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

  • #76
    Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

    It's clear that Luck is a superior athlete to Manning. But to assume work ethic, leadership, decision making, intelligence, grasp of NFL defenses, and grasp of calling plays is just a "Push"... that's a bit of a stretch. How would you know who worked harder going into year 2? How would you know who is more intelligent? How would you know who was better at reading a defense or calling plays? And by you, I mean anyone that didn't have a direct involvement with both of them entering year 2.

    Nothing you said is necessarily *wrong*. But the way you chart it out it just seems like fluff intending to support Luck.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

      Luck is a better leader. Peyton threw his O-line under the bus after the 05 loss to Pittsburgh. Luck would NEVER criticize his own teammates. Luck is accountable whenever he makes mistakes, whereas Manning always had excuses
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

        Originally posted by bunt View Post
        It's clear that Luck is a superior athlete to Manning. But to assume work ethic, leadership, decision making, intelligence, grasp of NFL defenses, and grasp of calling plays is just a "Push"... that's a bit of a stretch. How would you know who worked harder going into year 2? How would you know who is more intelligent? How would you know who was better at reading a defense or calling plays? And by you, I mean anyone that didn't have a direct involvement with both of them entering year 2.

        Nothing you said is necessarily *wrong*. But the way you chart it out it just seems like fluff intending to support Luck.
        Umm.... Observation and reading? I didn't make these things up, lol.... And believe it or not, I've done a ton of reading, and not just on BleacherReport. I've purchased books on Manning and Luck. They're good reads. The same things I'm reading about Luck were what I read about Manning in regards to work ethic and leadership in the locker-room. Isn't that all we ever had to go on in regards to Manning's leadership? We read it somewhere? It's not like there's some scientific score posted out there on the internet titled, "NFL Leadership Rankings as Compiled by 100 NFL Scouts". As for reading NFL defenses and calling plays --- I follow the team. I remember Manning didn't really start calling his own shots until game 1 of his third season. I also know that Luck was running his offense back at Stanford, and ran the Colts offense at many points last year and could've ran it more had his own offensive teammates had the offense down better. As for intelligence ---- there's a number of factors here. 1) Stanford is no mouse in the arena of universities. Luck could walk out of football right now and design football stadiums --- 3.48 GPA and full architecture degree at Stanford. Luck scored a 37 on the wonderlic; Manning scored a 28. They both have been observed by those around them as having an extraordinary capacity to store and almost instantly recall and process information. He's no dummy. It's not fluff, I'm not making it up, and I'm not inventing it. This is Luck, man.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

          There are books on Luck?
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

            I provided a link for you?
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

              I see two links. One about Luck running the offense at Stanford, and the other about Stanford's academics, but not a link to a book about Andrew.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I see two links. One about Luck running the offense at Stanford, and the other about Stanford's academics, but not a link to a book about Andrew.
                http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...%3Aandrew+luck

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                  I'm geniunely interested here, not trying to be a dick.

                  Judging a book by it's cover, and page count, not sure if I would really think they'd be worth the couple dollars.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I'm geniunely interested here, not trying to be a dick.

                    Judging a book by it's cover, and page count, not sure if I would really think they'd be worth the couple dollars.

                    Yeah, none of those look like they are going to be at the top of the NYT best seller list anytime soon. I doubt that there is anything in those that can't be found online, but maybe KidMinny can tell us since he has read them.

                    For that matter, is there any really good book on Peyton? By that I mean something with some sort of inside access. I've never read a book about him. I would just always read the solid articles from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, The Star (at times), etc.

                    When I think of a great sports bio, I think of this:

                    http://www.amazon.com/Captain-Journe...keywords=Jeter

                    O'Connor worked his tail off in interviewing inside people for this book. OTOH, those Luck books look like they'd be filled with the sort of generic info that could be found in random online articles. But I could be wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      Luck is a better leader. Peyton threw his O-line under the bus after the 05 loss to Pittsburgh. Luck would NEVER criticize his own teammates. Luck is accountable whenever he makes mistakes, whereas Manning always had excuses

                      His head shaking and pouting after a bad play or interception used to drive me crazy. Not the kind of body language and attitude you want to see from the leader of your team. Luck has a look like "I'll kill it next possession" while Manning was the opposite. I used to yell at the TV....."get your head up Manning". The main reason I was never all that confident going into big playoff games with Manning at the helm.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                        I've read a few on Manning, but they were awhile ago. http://www.amazon.com/Manning-Peyton...peyton+manning was a good read. Without reviewing it at all, if I remember correctly I'm fairly certain it has stories from Peyton and Archie themselves. The book was more of a first-hand telling from the Mannings themselves, talks about growing up and going through grade school, then high school and college and the draft process and growing up in the household. I want to say it was published very early in Manning's career, so it leaves off before the meat of his prime, but it's still a good read in terms of getting to know his personality and mindset, and where he came from. Regarding Luck, his books are so cheap that you can pretty much buy them all. Most are $2.99 on amazon. I read http://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Luck-In...ds=andrew+luck which I thought was better than the 2 star rating it has. Unlike the Manning book, which is a lot of first-hand stories from the Mannings themselves... this book is more of an outside look in on Luck, getting peripheral stories from insiders, mostly because Luck himself is pretty private. It's not Mark Twain by any means, and a lot of it might be already understood, but I thought it did a decent job of giving a background on Luck, and telling little antedotes about him from those close to him. Gives you a good idea of his personality. He's really a very simple, humble dude, doesn't party, hangs out with family, lives a relatively simple life with simple devices. I think as you read it, you'll recognize things he did back then are exactly what he does now --- puts on a superhuman performance, and then downplays his own contributions while hoisting up his teammates efforts. He never brags, he never talks ****, he *always* defers compliments to his teammates. It's a short book and a fast read, so it doesn't bore you to death with pages of fluff, it's just a bunch of quick-hitting short stories. Both books (Manning and Luck) are potty-material. They're not works of literature that are cherished and admired, examined and dissected and studied for decades afterwards by the scholars and literature majors of the world. It's football stuff, it's simple, it's testosterone and man-cave material.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-27-2013, 09:26 PM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                          Okay, warning, rant incoming.

                          Wow, people are bad mouthing Manning? The guy basically built Indianapolis into a football town over 14 years. We're going to hold one time mentioning the pass protection was bad (and it was against the Steelers) and him being visibly angry after a bad play against years and years of incredible production, late game heroics, a flippin super bowl, and being pretty much recognized as the ultimate class act by everyone he's ever played with? Not even close.

                          The 'not clutch' label is ridiculous. We're talking about the NFL's all time leader in 4th Quarter comebacks.

                          The Colts are incredibly blessed to have a player like Luck to follow up Manning. Maybe he'll prove to be better, that's great. But when Manning came the Indianapolis Colts were known primarily for the Mayflower Vans, and being terrible aside from one brief run with Jim Harbaugh. Now the Colts are know as year in and year out one of the best franchises in the league. And that change started with Manning.

                          Let me add again, on topic, that Luck is incredible. Minus him, I'm not sure that talent wise we weren't worse than the 2-14 team from the previous year. Just remarkable what one QB can do.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                            I don't think people are dissing on what Manning did for this franchise. I think they're just making some pretty valid observations on his actual game. I love the man, he was my favorite player of all time, and still is tied for that "honor". But I won't deny that despite the mastery he achieved of this game, he had his weaknesses. He never really lost the happy feet. His body language could be pretty bad. He never had the biggest arm in the world. He was never the most athletic QB. He did have his moments with the team, a few bad pressers where he threw the O-line under a bus. I knew all t hose things even as he was dominating the league, because his few strengths were so amazingly strong, it mostly covered up his weaknesses. His mind was out of this world. His release-time was absurd. His placement was impeccable. Those three strengths basically catapulted him to be one of the greatest of all time in terms of pure accomplishments. I think that was what was so endearing about him... he was human, he wasn't perfect, he was average in a lot of areas, but he was exceptional in a handful of things, and he did a good job of limiting his weaknesses. And yes, he did become clutch.... later on. My chart comparison was in the first few years. He didn't perform too well in the clutch in the first few years. It's hard to say Manning stacked up to Luck in that first year. Luck had 9 comeback wins.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-28-2013, 11:19 AM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                              Manning now has a total of 8 one and dones in the playoffs. It's mind boggling that the one of the greatest QB's of all time can have that kind of playoff record. While we know he hasn't been as bad as the public perception, unfortunately that might be his legacy if he doesn't win another one. I feel the pressure is on him big time right now. Another one and done this year would be disastrous. For most of the public(and media somewhat) that won't dig a little deeper and find out How he lost those games, the one and done label is what sticks out. When you are the high profile QB you will get most of the blame. It comes with the territory.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                Manning now has a total of 8 one and dones in the playoffs. It's mind boggling that the one of the greatest QB's of all time can have that kind of playoff record. While we know he hasn't been as bad as the public perception, unfortunately that might be his legacy if he doesn't win another one. I feel the pressure is on him big time right now. Another one and done this year would be disastrous. For most of the public(and media somewhat) that won't dig a little deeper and find out How he lost those games, the one and done label is what sticks out. When you are the high profile QB you will get most of the blame. It comes with the territory.
                                And while he didn't play terrible in many of those games, it's not as if he necessary played great either.

                                He's just never completely kicked it into that extra gear in the playoffs. I'm not going to lie, when I saw some of the throws that Eli was making against the Packers, 49ers, and Pats in the playoffs two years ago, I thought to myself that it would have been nice to see Peyton throw it like that more often against such elite playoff competition. Eli was just spectacular two years ago. That being said, Peyton is still the better QB because in other seasons, Eli can't even play good enough to get his team in the playoffs. But the cat certainly shines when the lights are brightest, that's for sure.

                                Peyton is easily a top 10 all time quarterback, but the playoffs prevent him from being at the very top.

                                I agree that the pressure is sky high this year. This could potentially be one of the weakest AFC's that Peyton has ever seen. The Pats will still be in the mix, but odds are that this won't be the best team that they've put out over the last decade. Plus Manning's team took their best receiver. The Ravens lost virtually every notable starter except for Flacco and Rice, while the Steelers are old. I'm still not sold on the Bengals or the Texans, and the Colts may still be another year away.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-28-2013, 02:40 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X