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

2013 Peyton Manning thread

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

  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

    Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
    All the great athletes and driven individuals in anything have the same traits. They are obsessive, want things their own way to stick to routine, dislike changes to that routine, and will do whatever it takes to win. The difference is that Peyton has tremendous PR and so that makes him "likable" but in reality he's just the same. You know, laser rocket arm.
    Well he's also white yes its un PC but if you're a person of color you know this. That being said it doesn't bother me at least they care I'd be more upset if they didn't.

    As for the ceremony I rather they have waited till he retired no point in doing it now (and I thought this before Jimbo pressed that send button to his tweet)

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      Polian also predicted that Manning “won’t like the pregame ceremony, whatever it may be” on Sunday because Manning likes to prepare for every game the same way with no distractions.

      When Steele said the separation between Manning and the Colts was “amicable,” Polian disagreed.

      “He wanted to stay very badly right up until the end,” Polian said of Manning. “They cut him.”


      And when Steele asked Polian for his thoughts on Sunday’s game, Polian didn’t opt for the politically correct answer. Instead, he made clear that he hopes Manning goes to Indianapolis and sticks it to the Colts.

      “My heart would be with the Broncos all the way,” Polian said.

      Almost two years after Irsay fired him, Polian sounds like he still has hard feelings.


      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ng-for-denver/


      I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but these Polian comments are noteworthy. Colts fans try to tell themselves that the split was amicable and something that both Peyton and Colts mutually wanted, but that's just not the case. Peyton wanted to stay. There were hurt feelings. Peyton took the high road at the press conference, but there's little doubt that he was upset about what happened. Regardless of what one thinks about Polian, there's no doubt that the guy was a super close confidant of Peyton for 13 years. If he says that Peyton wanted to stay, then Peyton wanted to stay.

      I'm not criticizing what the Colts did because it's worked out well so far, but I really do think that some Colts fans try to put on rose colored glasses with this situation when they act as if Peyton and Irsay were in complete agreement about what needed to happen. That's just not the case. Peyton wanted to be an Indianapolis Colt for his entire career and nothing else. He would have been more than happy to hang around the organization if they were bringing in a coup of assets for the Number 1 pick. That would have been a better situation than the one he signed up for in 2011 when he signed his contract here. It makes no sense to say that he wanted out one year later when the Colts would have been in better position.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-18-2013, 09:28 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        I want the Colts to win even more now knowing that Polian is rooting for the Broncos.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          I don't see the issue the Colts did fire Polian and the rest of his family(rightfully so of course) and he did draft Manning did anyone think he was going to root for the Colts?

          A nonstory.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            I think there won't be a ceremony after all(what a relief)

            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...fore-the-game/

            Broncos won’t (can’t) individually introduce Peyton Manning before the game

            Posted by Mike Florio on October 18, 2013, 6:41 PM EDT

            AP
            It’s still unclear what the Colts plan to do when Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning returns to town on Sunday night, but one thing is clear — Manning will not be individually introduced before the game.

            Per multiple league sources, the NFL no longer allows visiting team to introduce specific players. Instead, the visiting team is now introduced as a group. The Broncos haven’t requested any type of exemption for Sunday night, and we’re told they don’t plan to.

            Thus, while at some point there will be an occasion for the crowd to give Manning his much-deserved multi-minute standing ovation, it won’t happen via the P.A. announcer declaring, “. . . and at quarterback, Peyton Manning!”

            The Broncos have twice before introduced specific players who were making their homecomings. In 2009, Denver brought Dawkins back to Philly for a rollicking reprise of his Weapon X routine. The Broncos went through a similar experience when safety John Lynch returned to Tampa.

            Undoubtedly, some sort of memorable moment will happen, far different than the reception Brett Favre received in Green Bay four years ago. It definitely won’t happen with Manning emerging alone from the tunnel to be embraced one more time by the throng at Lucas Oil Stadium.
            Last edited by Basketball Fan; 10-18-2013, 08:40 PM.

            Comment


            • No sounds like they may do something, they just can't announce him individually.

              Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
              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


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                I don't see the issue the Colts did fire Polian and the rest of his family(rightfully so of course) and he did draft Manning did anyone think he was going to root for the Colts?

                A nonstory.

                I didn't say it was a story, I just don't like Polian. The fact that Polian wants Manning to stick it to the Colts makes me hope we win and stick it to Polian. If not in this game, I really do hope we get a chance to play them in the post season.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  No sounds like they may do something, they just can't announce him individually.

                  Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                  I'm kind of wondering how that's going to happen. I mean really are they going to have the Broncos team with him? Seems rather stupid which is why they should wait till he retires and this whole "Irsay brouhaha" is a distant memory.

                  I rather they just play the game and get it over with.

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  I didn't say it was a story, I just don't like Polian. The fact that Polian wants Manning to stick it to the Colts makes me hope we win and stick it to Polian. If not in this game, I really do hope we get a chance to play them in the post season.
                  This is really a general comment about people making it a story its common sense that would tell you Polian would root for the player he drafted to the Colts rather than the team that fired him and the rest of his family.

                  If Andrew Luck were to go elsewhere and he returned to Indy and Grigson was canned or something I expect him to root for Andrew over whoever was the Colts QB at the time same difference.
                  Last edited by Basketball Fan; 10-18-2013, 09:21 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    I'm kind of wondering how that's going to happen. I mean really are they going to have the Broncos team with him? Seems rather stupid which is why they should wait till he retires and this whole "Irsay brouhaha" is a distant memory.

                    I rather they just play the game and get it over with.



                    This is really a general comment about people making it a story its common sense that would tell you Polian would root for the player he drafted to the Colts rather than the team that fired him and the rest of his family.

                    If Andrew Luck were to go elsewhere and he returned to Indy and Grigson was canned or something I expect him to root for Andrew over whoever was the Colts QB at the time same difference.

                    Yeah, I agree. Don't expect Polian to ever get wishy-washy about the horseshoe that fired him in the end. It's just an organization and nice looking logo. For a guy like Polian, the personal relationships with guys like Manning are way more important than the organization itself. He's going to feel far more of a bond with the HOF QB that he worked with for 13 years than he is an organization that is for all practical purposes a completely different place nowadays (aside from a couple holdovers like Wayne and Mathis). I don't blame him for rooting for Peyton.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      I'm sure Polian is butt hurt because he thinks the Colts should've kept him and Peyton... or that will be his story. He'd have been fine with drafting Luck and keeping himself too....

                      He just wants to be on the opposite side of the situation so he can keep telling himself he's the smartest man in the room.
                      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: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                        I didn't say it was a story, I just don't like Polian. The fact that Polian wants Manning to stick it to the Colts makes me hope we win and stick it to Polian. If not in this game, I really do hope we get a chance to play them in the post season.
                        I don't think I could care less who Bill Polian roots for these days. However, Jake Query had a pretty good tweet I thought:

                        @jakequery
                        2009 Bill Polian: Records secondary to Super Bowls
                        2013 Bill Polian: Irsay wrong to be dissapointed in 1 Super Bowl. Look at the records!

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          Bill Polian is a squid, just like Bill Simmons
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Kravitz in yesterday's gushing love letter to Manning:

                            Ultimately, I don’t root for teams or even outcomes, but here’s what I want to see Sunday: An epic shootout between you and Andrew Luck. Don’t particularly care who wins, but I want a game that will show, once and for all, that this has been a giant win-win for everybody involved.

                            http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...Peyton-Manning

                            Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the main sports voice of the Indy Star can't even bring himself to say that he's rooting for the Colts in this monster game? I expect the national media to be overly biased towards Manning in this game (ESPN might as well just give orange 18 jerseys to their anchors and analysts), but I would hope that the main voice of the local newspaper would openly profess that he's rooting for the Colts. I don't care that Kravitz used to work in Denver or that he was very close to Peyton here. I care that the main sports mouthpiece for the local newspaper can't even bring himself to say that he's rooting for the home team. Weak.

                            Kravitz acting like he is some casual objective bystander who doesn't root for teams is foolish. Would he have ever said that he didn't care who won the Colts-Pats AFCCG? Of course not. Would he have ever said that he didn't care who won the Super Bowl against the Saints? No freaking way. By saying that he doesn't care who wins this game, he's making it pretty clear that he's rooting for Denver, IMHO.

                            I don't care who Kravitz personally cheers to root for, but I do care that he as the main sports voice of the local newspaper can't even bring himself to root for the home team in the community he writes for. His salary is paid by a community of people who want to see the Colts win.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-19-2013, 02:06 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Kravitz in yesterday's gushing love letter to Manning:

                              Ultimately, I don’t root for teams or even outcomes, but here’s what I want to see Sunday: An epic shootout between you and Andrew Luck. Don’t particularly care who wins, but I want a game that will show, once and for all, that this has been a giant win-win for everybody involved.

                              http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...Peyton-Manning

                              Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the main sports voice of the Indy Star can't even bring himself to say that he's rooting for the Colts in this monster game? I expect the national media to be overly biased towards Manning in this game (and they certainly have been), but I would hope that the main voice of the local newspaper would openly profess that he's rooting for the Colts. I don't care that Kravitz used to work in Denver or that he was very close to Peyton here. I care that the main sports mouthpiece for the local newspaper can't even bring himself to say that he's rooting for the home team. Weak.

                              Kravitz acting like he is some casual objective bystander who doesn't root for teams is foolish. Would he have ever said that he didn't care who won the Colts-Pats AFCCG? Of course not. Would he have ever said that he didn't care who won the Super Bowl against the Saints? No freaking way. By saying that he doesn't care who wins this game, he's making it pretty clear that he's rooting for Denver, IMHO.

                              I don't care who Kravitz personally cheers to root for, but I do care that he as the main sports voice of the local newspaper can't even bring himself to root for the home team in the community he writes for.

                              I agree. That is kind of weird. Don't particularly care who wins? C'mon Bob.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Kravitz in yesterday's gushing love letter to Manning:

                                Ultimately, I don’t root for teams or even outcomes, but here’s what I want to see Sunday: An epic shootout between you and Andrew Luck. Don’t particularly care who wins, but I want a game that will show, once and for all, that this has been a giant win-win for everybody involved.

                                http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...Peyton-Manning

                                Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the main sports voice of the Indy Star can't even bring himself to say that he's rooting for the Colts in this monster game? I expect the national media to be overly biased towards Manning in this game (ESPN might as well just give orange 18 jerseys to their anchors and analysts), but I would hope that the main voice of the local newspaper would openly profess that he's rooting for the Colts. I don't care that Kravitz used to work in Denver or that he was very close to Peyton here. I care that the main sports mouthpiece for the local newspaper can't even bring himself to say that he's rooting for the home team. Weak.

                                Kravitz acting like he is some casual objective bystander who doesn't root for teams is foolish. Would he have ever said that he didn't care who won the Colts-Pats AFCCG? Of course not. Would he have ever said that he didn't care who won the Super Bowl against the Saints? No freaking way. By saying that he doesn't care who wins this game, he's making it pretty clear that he's rooting for Denver, IMHO.

                                I don't care who Kravitz personally cheers to root for, but I do care that he as the main sports voice of the local newspaper can't even bring himself to root for the home team in the community he writes for. His salary is paid by a community of people who want to see the Colts win.

                                I don't think he's rooting for Denver I mean seeing as how he keeps going on how its the right decision to dump Manning (and it was but I'm not as gleeful about it as Kravy) I just think he's doing this to get hits for his column.

                                It works.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X