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

    I never said he was queasy about spending money. Don't know who did. What I said was, I think he was queasy about HOW he spent his money. I disagree that $13mill isn't a big deal. That's just in a single year. It enabled us to bring in a number of people.
    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

      A couple of thoughts:

      If the Colts had gone with Manning, the talent around him wouldn't have been that bad specifically because they had such a valuable #1 pick to shop around. We already know the offer Cleveland made later on, and they probably would have made a similar offer before that if the Colts had wanted to trade the pick. That amount of draft picks would have allowed the Colts to go in several different directions to rebuild quickly. The 2012 and 2013 Colts would have had better talent around Peyton than the 2010 and 2011 Colts did, and it probably wouldn't have been close.

      I'm not buying the Colts as a top 5 defense this year. Three of their games have been the 10 worst scoring offenses in the league so far, and no games against any of the top 10. It looks even worse if you look at yards-all four of their opponents so far are ranked 20th or worse in yards per game. The Colts have a schedule that is heavily weighted towards defensive teams this year, and that's going to cause some issues interpreting the offensive and defensive rankings.

      And if you measure it by scoring defense (which the Colts are 5th in right now) this is not the first time the Colts have been high in that department. During the Manning years they finished 2nd in scoring defense in 2005, 1st in 2007, 7th in 2008, and 8th in 2009.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        I never said he was queasy about spending money. Don't know who did. What I said was, I think he was queasy about HOW he spent his money. I disagree that $13mill isn't a big deal. That's just in a single year. It enabled us to bring in a number of people. You keep Manning, and your team is now top-heavy, without as much depth. Irsay decided that a young Luck + a handful of other assets was better long-term decision than Manning + nothing for a few years. I agree with him. It's hard to see right now, with Manning doing what he's doing... but --- I don't think Manning would be doing this in Indy. He'd be good... but not 350/4/game good.
        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 Cubs231721 View Post
          A couple of thoughts:

          If the Colts had gone with Manning, the talent around him wouldn't have been that bad specifically because they had such a valuable #1 pick to shop around. We already know the offer Cleveland made later on, and they probably would have made a similar offer before that if the Colts had wanted to trade the pick. That amount of draft picks would have allowed the Colts to go in several different directions to rebuild quickly. The 2012 and 2013 Colts would have had better talent around Peyton than the 2010 and 2011 Colts did, and it probably wouldn't have been close.

          I'm not buying the Colts as a top 5 defense this year. Three of their games have been the 10 worst scoring offenses in the league so far, and no games against any of the top 10. It looks even worse if you look at yards-all four of their opponents so far are ranked 20th or worse in yards per game. The Colts have a schedule that is heavily weighted towards defensive teams this year, and that's going to cause some issues interpreting the offensive and defensive rankings.

          And if you measure it by scoring defense (which the Colts are 5th in right now) this is not the first time the Colts have been high in that department. During the Manning years they finished 2nd in scoring defense in 2005, 1st in 2007, 7th in 2008, and 8th in 2009.
          Then why on earth didn't they win SBs? A top 5 offense and top 5 defense in 5 of the past 10 years and 1 SB? What's wrong with that?
          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 Since86 View Post

            I don't think Irsay expected the Colts to be THAT bad, and when he figured out that Luck was going to be available, the perfect storm was created. I just have a hard time thinking Irsay got queasy about spending money, considering how much he spent throughout the 2000's on players like Sanders, Freeney, Harrison, and Peyton. All of those guys were considered the highest paid at their positions, and most of them if not all 4 had those contracts at the same time. Irsay has proven himself as a spender.
            That just comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the cap. There's no real way to be cheap in the NFL anymore. With a hard cap and with every team having to spend an average of 89 percent of their cap over a four year period, everybody's paying about the same amount for players. Some are paying more in signing bonuses while others are spending more in base salary, but that's about it. Cutting all those players saved Irsay cash flow money last year, but then the cash flow went the opposite way this year with the signing bonuses that were given out to fill the cap space that was left by those players. It all evens out in the end in the NFL.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Then why on earth didn't they win SBs? A top 5 offense and top 5 defense in 5 of the past 10 years and 1 SB? What's wrong with that?
              because winning super bowls is incredibly difficult and there are other great teams too

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Then why on earth didn't they win SBs? A top 5 offense and top 5 defense in 5 of the past 10 years and 1 SB? What's wrong with that?
                1) That's only four years. The Super Bowl year their defensive rankings were terrible.

                2) The best team rarely wins. 1 game playoffs almost always ensure that. You can be a 65% favorite in every one of your playoff games, and that still only leaves you with a 27% chance of winning the Super Bowl (assuming a bye). And you're not a 65% percent favorite of winning against most playoff teams.

                3. The special teams unit was always terrible. Using DVOA rankings, they were 25th in 2005, 32nd in 2007, 24th in 2008, and 19th in 2009. Manning had one of the worst average starting field positions for any QB ever, and that was a big reason why.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  I honestly don't get the direction this thread has gone in. Basically, what I should take from the last few pages, is that nothing in the NFL really matters; players, caps, draft picks, FA pickups, coaches --- all pointless. Winning is difficult and random, the best team loses and the worst team can win it all. There's no rhyme or reason to anything. Helter-skelter. But when it comes to proving a point, then all of a sudden some random stat becomes relevant.

                  Look guys, I'm standing by this team. I think Luck is good; I don't regret Manning's time here or his moving on; I like the direction this team is going in. I'm just going to leave it at that. It's getting hard to argue with 7 different people, all making random different points.

                  I'm just going to warn against buyers/sellers remorse. Because that's what I smell in this thread. People are watching Manning right now and wishing things. You will probably see that in a few years, it's okay to stand by Luck.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-30-2013, 02:42 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


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Basically, what I should take from the last few pages, is that nothing in the NFL really matters; players, caps, draft picks, FA pickups, coaches --- all pointless. Winning is difficult and random, the best team loses and the worst team can win it all. There's no rhyme or reason to anything. Helter-skelter. But when it comes to proving a point, then all of a sudden some random stat becomes relevant.
                    Not even a 1/10th of that was actually said nor implied.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      I honestly don't get the direction this thread has gone in. Basically, what I should take from the last few pages, is that nothing in the NFL really matters; players, caps, draft picks, FA pickups, coaches --- all pointless. Winning is difficult and random, the best team loses and the worst team can win it all. There's no rhyme or reason to anything. Helter-skelter. But when it comes to proving a point, then all of a sudden some random stat becomes relevant.

                      Look guys, I'm standing by this team. I think Luck is good; I don't regret Manning's time here or his moving on; I like the direction this team is going in. I'm just going to leave it at that. It's getting hard to argue with 7 different people, all making random different points.

                      I'm just going to warn against buyers/sellers remorse. Because that's what I smell in this thread. People are watching Manning right now and wishing things. You will probably see that in a few years, it's okay to stand by Luck.

                      I don't see any buyers remorse around here ( I found Irsay immature in how he handled it but that's another post) but that was my only issue with Manning's departure. Besides most people already were done with him with the "Suck for Luck" season anyways I mean when you start wearing Luck jerseys midway through a bad season its evident that he wasn't welcome anymore whether people admit it or not.

                      Its really the media that fuels the fire however I think its unrealistic to think that we were going to win the SB every year(even though I thought we should've won more than one) because unlike the other sports its one and done yes even the team who isn't better can win it all. I mean the Giants beat the Pats twice but did I ever think they were a better team overall than the Pats? No but they were when it mattered.

                      Irsay made his choice I thought it was the right one as do most people around here but its a Peyton Manning thread he's going to be talked about if you don't want to talk about him I suggest another thread.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        I don't mind talking about Manning at all. I've been doing so. Just saying that I'm getting a feeling that there are people with creeping feelings of buyers/sellers remorse.
                        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

                          You know Buffalo and Miami are looking at us and wondering why our fanbase is so divided over taking 15 years of Luck vs 3 or 4 years of Peyton after seeing those two teams struggle with finding a franchise QB after their legendary ones have retired....
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Not even a 1/10th of that was actually said nor implied.
                            Oooooookay.
                            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 Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Oooooookay.
                              Don't believe me? Then show me where someone talked about coaches, outside of your post. That's just one example of you injecting something that wasn't said, into your perception of what was said.

                              I'm not having buyers remorse at all, the topic of conversation was about how truthful citing money issues really is. Like Sollozzo said, money was cited for PR reasons and that's about the extent of it. The rest of what you got out of it, is made up.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                                You know Buffalo and Miami are looking at us and wondering why our fanbase is so divided over taking 15 years of Luck vs 3 or 4 years of Peyton after seeing those two teams struggle with finding a franchise QB after their legendary ones have retired....
                                Buffalo maybe but I think Miami seems okay with this Tannehill guy so far.

                                However this debate raged on in SF with Montana and Young even though Young was the right decision there are many who hated it and still do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X