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 Basketball Fan View Post
    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.
    I think these guys pride themselves as being objective JOURNALISTS so they have to say that for public consumption. And do we care whether any of these guys are presently Colt fans?

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      I'm just ready for this game to be over. Hopefully we play Denver out there next year if we both win our divisions.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
        I'm just ready for this game to be over. Hopefully we play Denver out there next year if we both win our divisions.

        If this is correct, then yes, we would play Denver in Denver if we both won our division. This link says that we will play our equivalent AFC West opponent on the road:

        http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-14/20...l-schedule.php

        If both the Colts and Pats win their division, then it looks like we'd be hosting them next year.

        Not to get ahead of myself, but there are a ton of potentially huge matchups next year. It's 100% certain that we play Washington here, which will have a ton of hype. We go on the road to NYG and Dallas, either of which could be a SNF game. If the Colts, Broncos, and Pats win their divisions, then we'd play in Denver and host New England. I know I'm looking way too far ahead, but we're likely going to have a lot of prime time games next season.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-20-2013, 11:03 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          Peyton had 59.2 pass completion pct last night and that was his worst while playing for Denver...
          Never forget

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            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.
            Not only is it not PC, it is just wrong too. It is because he is articulate and sounds smart. This is something that people of color often miss. Most white people don't care about the color of your skin anymore, but they do care about how articulate you are and how smart you sound. If a black person is articulate and comes off as a smart, and isn't a prima donna, us white folks will like him just as much as they will like a white guy. On the flip side if a white guy comes off as dumb, or is a prima donna, we aren't going to like him. Stop jumping to the race card so quickly, and start thinking about things more critically.

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Basketball and football is a little different, because of the importance of specific roles. Danny's role can be consumed by multiple players, whereas a QBs role cannot. Also, I think they did have a plan even if it turned out to be a bad one. Gerald Green.
            Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              I love Peyton Manning, but I do not miss the pressure his offense puts on his own defense. 8 straight possessions of either a safety or a 3 and out are hard on your defense. And Peyton's offense did that often here, thus putting too much pressure on a fast but undersized defense.

              I really like the balance attack of the offense with Luck. But the predictable 1st and 10 run needs to stop when we have the lead. Because Luck dumps it down after his 2nd read we can pick up 3-4 yards on first down. But Richardson is not get the yardage on first down we need. I think we won't see that till next year.

              As much as I love this team. There is room for improvement. Which should scare the rest of the league. Once this defense locks down and stops the run, we are looking at an elite team. Meaning a consistent team.

              But then I look at our loses. Both on the road. And both against hot teams. The Dolphins were hot when we lost. And the Chargers are one of the hottest teams in the AFC.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                [QUOTE=Eleazar;1719899]Not only is it not PC, it is just wrong too. It is because he is articulate and sounds smart. This is something that people of color often miss. Most white people don't care about the color of your skin anymore, but they do care about how articulate you are and how smart you sound. If a black person is articulate and comes off as a smart, and isn't a prima donna, us white folks will like him just as much as they will like a white guy. On the flip side if a white guy comes off as dumb, or is a prima donna, we aren't going to like him. Stop jumping to the race card so quickly, and start thinking about things more critically.


                Sure they don't if you really think a person of color is going to be judged the same as someone who is white well I don't know what to say. Its not about the "race card" its common sense of how society works when it comes to race relations. Is it always about race? No but if you don't think if factors into perception then that's not thinking critically.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                  Peyton had 59.2 pass completion pct last night and that was his worst while playing for Denver...
                  Help an NFL layman out: What is the typical pass completion % of elite quarterbacks, and what's the % for the entire league's QB's? Thanks

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Help an NFL layman out: What is the typical pass completion % of elite quarterbacks, and what's the % for the entire league's QB's? Thanks
                    Guys like Brady and Manning have been consistently mid 60's throughout the prime of their careers. Manning is at 71% this year, but one that high is almost unheard of.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Help an NFL layman out: What is the typical pass completion % of elite quarterbacks, and what's the % for the entire league's QB's? Thanks
                      I usually consider 60% and up to be very good. It really depends on what kind of an offense a team runs though.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        Sure they don't if you really think a person of color is going to be judged the same as someone who is white well I don't know what to say. Its not about the "race card" its common sense of how society works when it comes to race relations. Is it always about race? No but if you don't think if factors into perception then that's not thinking critically.
                        I'm saying the common sense is wrong, and outdated. It is a hold over from a time where racism was extremely common.

                        I'm not saying there is no racism, only that people jump to the racism conclusion way too fast. This nation has a history of racism, and this history, for many, causes kneejerk reactions without proper assessment of the situation. Can racism be a cause of something, yes. Is it as often as it often gets blamed, no. Such in this case presentation is more of a defining factor. In which case most white people are at an advantage where a higher percentage grow up in a middle class family where they have parents who stress such things as many of their parents have to worry about how they present themselves at work. Meanwhile a larger percentage of blacks grow up poor and don't have parents who stress education and presentation the same way middle class parents do. This creates an apparent divide between black and white when in reality income is more of a defining factor.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          I love Peyton Manning, but I do not miss the pressure his offense puts on his own defense. 8 straight possessions of either a safety or a 3 and out are hard on your defense. And Peyton's offense did that often here, thus putting too much pressure on a fast but undersized defense.

                          I really like the balance attack of the offense with Luck. But the predictable 1st and 10 run needs to stop when we have the lead. Because Luck dumps it down after his 2nd read we can pick up 3-4 yards on first down. But Richardson is not get the yardage on first down we need. I think we won't see that till next year.

                          As much as I love this team. There is room for improvement. Which should scare the rest of the league. Once this defense locks down and stops the run, we are looking at an elite team. Meaning a consistent team.

                          But then I look at our loses. Both on the road. And both against hot teams. The Dolphins were hot when we lost. And the Chargers are one of the hottest teams in the AFC.
                          The "pressure" that Peyton puts on his defense is certainly not the norm. The Broncos came in as the number one offense in the league, the colts defense just played the game of their lives last night. Also, dumb penalties, inability to get open quickly, and inability to protect the QB were major factors last night.

                          The colts offense honestly put more pressure on their defense than the broncos offense did for their defense. We had quick drives, and a costly turnover on our side of the field.

                          Also we received the ball in plus territory quite a bit, but due to our Ineffectiveness especially late (1-7 in the 4th, -1yd passing and no run game to speak of) we almost let the Broncos come back late.
                          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-21-2013, 03:12 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Nobody is talking about the fact that this game was so hyped that it was a playoff like atmosphere and other than late in the game Manning performed at a sub par level. Part of that loss is on Manning. Haven't we seen this many times before? I still don't trust him in playoff like situations and never will. I said before the game was played that the more hype that was put on this game could end up working in the Colts favor. Bingo. I like Manning and wouldn't mind seeing him win another SB, but I definitely wouldn't bet money on it. Just like always fans and media are drinking the Manning regular season kool-aid again this year.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Yeah except it was a regular season game much like the Manning Bowl earlier this season was hyped up yet people forgot all about that since the Giants suck this year. Or any game involving the Pats during the Manning era in the regular season.

                              This was no different but it was far more nauseating as far as pregame hype because of the whole "homecoming" but beyond that no it didn't feel like a playoff game.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                Nobody is talking about the fact that this game was so hyped that it was a playoff like atmosphere and other than late in the game Manning performed at a sub par level. Part of that loss is on Manning. Haven't we seen this many times before? I still don't trust him in playoff like situations and never will. I said before the game was played that the more hype that was put on this game could end up working in the Colts favor. Bingo. I like Manning and wouldn't mind seeing him win another SB, but I definitely wouldn't bet money on it. Just like always fans and media are drinking the Manning regular season kool-aid again this year.
                                Well let's say it was a playoff game. The atmosphere in the stadium made it look like it for sure. What did Manning actually do wrong this time? Please don't tell me about the INT cause it's not on him. If anything, it's his RB that let his team down with that fumble in the redzone.

                                They had a scoring drive in 48 seconds.
                                At the end there were no timeouts left to stop the clock. Our defense and secondary especially for the best part of the game was just magnificent.
                                Never forget

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X