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

    But Irsay should know how the media machine works.

    I mean I think moving on from Manning was the right thing to do long term and if this is how he truly feels I respect the fact that he's honest even if I don't agree with him but to have this come out now is not smart.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      I'm sure this is going to be wall to wall coverage the next few days.

      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-on-jim-irsay/


      Posted by Mike Florio on October 15, 2013, 6:58 PM EDT

      Reuters
      This is getting good.

      In response to comments to USA Today (which, frankly, were buried under far less compelling quotes) from Colts owner Jim Irsay regarding the various one-and-out playoff runs and absence of multiple Super Bowl wins from the Peyton Manning era, Broncos coach John Fox fired back.

      “I saw the comments [from Irsay] and to be honest with you I thought it was a bit of a cheap shot,” Fox told Pat Kirwan and Jim Miller of SiriusXM NFL Radio. “To me, in my opinion, they were disappointing and inappropriate. I mean, Peyton would never say anything. He’s too classy to do that. But they sounded a little ungrateful and unappreciative to me for a guy that has set a standard, won a Super Bowl, won division titles, won four MVP awards. I’d be thankful with that one Super Bowl ring because there’s a lot of people that don’t have one.”

      “We’ve changed our model a little bit, because we wanted more than one of these,” Irsay said, referring to his Super Bowl XLI ring. “[Tom] Brady never had consistent numbers, but he has three of these. Pittsburgh had two, the Giants had two, Baltimore had two and we had one. That leaves you frustrated.

      “You make the playoffs 11 times, and you’re out in the first round seven out of 11 times. You love to have the Star Wars numbers from Peyton and Marvin [Harrison] and Reggie [Wayne]. Mostly, you love [championships].”

      Apart from whether Irsay has a point (and some would say he does), the timing couldn’t have been worse. In five days, Manning returns to Indianapolis — and now it’s obvious he’s going to be pissed and driven and determined to show Irsay what Manning is still capable of doing.

      Irsay has yet to address the situation on his favorite communications platform — Twitter. We’ll be keeping an eye on anything he may have to say there, decipherable or otherwise.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        I was about to post that. So it begins.

        I was sort of expecting someone from the Broncos organization to respond and I agree with John "take a knee, Peyton" Fox that Manning wouldn't respond to that.

        What happened was 100% the right move for the club but I also think it is bad timing for Irsay to come out and say that stuff. Oh well, can't wait till Sunday and be done with it.
        Never forget

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          I don't think he meant it as a shot at Peyton. In fact, he might've even meant it in a 'we failed him' kind of way.
          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

            I think it just means Irsay has a big mouth. There's nothing beyond the surface to read into anything Irsay ever says.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
              I was about to post that. So it begins.

              What happened was 100% the right move for the club but I also think it is bad timing for Irsay to come out and say that stuff. Oh well, can't wait till Sunday and be done with it.
              You can't totally say it was 100%. Sure it worked out good so far, the Team certainly over achieved last year, but maybe to their own detriment.

              We know that the Browns were prepared to give up their entire draft for Luck. So the Colts would of had about 18 picks in that draft if they kept Peyton. So the team could have rebuilt pretty easily around Peyton and give it one last go for a SuperBowl over the next 3-4 years. Its not all doom and gloom like they said it was with the salary cap. This team rebuilt its entire Defense every 3 years anyway. They never resign anybody on the Defensive side of the ball anyway unless they developed into a pro-bowler.

              Anyways given Irsay's comments I hope Manning demolishes them on Sunday.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                John Fox needs to shut up. I agree with Bball, Irsay probably feels he failed Manning by putting too much on his back. I don't really think it was a shot at all. If anything, maybe a shot at himself and the rest of the organization for not putting Peyton in better positions.

                Do I think Irsay should have kept his mouth shut in the first place? Yeah, he probably should have, but what he said just isn't that big of a deal, but with the media and hype for this game already, you don't need to be talking and adding more potential fuel to the fire.
                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  eh, that looks like a pretty clear shot at Peyton to me.

                  "We've changed our model a little bit, because we wanted more than one of these," Irsay says, flicking up his right hand to show his Super Bowl XLI championship ring.
                  leave it at that and its fine. nothing wrong with that statement

                  "(Tom) Brady never had consistent numbers, but he has three of these," Irsay adds. "Pittsburgh had two, the Giants had two, Baltimore had two and we had one. That leaves you frustrated.


                  "You make the playoffs 11 times, and you're out in the first round seven out of 11 times. You love to have the Star Wars numbers from Peyton and Marvin (Harrison) and Reggie (Wayne). Mostly, you love this."
                  This though, this is a shot at Peyton. One bringing up Brady, two bringing up Eli's Giants. Three talking about numbers vs Super Bowl wins, especially saying how Brady didn't have the numbers, but had more rings while Peyton had the numbers, but less rings.

                  To me, Irsay should have kept his mouth shut. No need to say this, let alone a week before Peyton returns. In the end, things worked out pretty damn well for the Colts getting Luck in the draft. And they have worked out fine for Peyton so far too. Would be nice if Irsay just left it at that.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                    eh, that looks like a pretty clear shot at Peyton to me.


                    leave it at that and its fine. nothing wrong with that statement



                    This though, this is a shot at Peyton. One bringing up Brady, two bringing up Eli's Giants. Three talking about numbers vs Super Bowl wins, especially saying how Brady didn't have the numbers, but had more rings while Peyton had the numbers, but less rings.

                    To me, Irsay should have kept his mouth shut. No need to say this, let alone a week before Peyton returns. In the end, things worked out pretty damn well for the Colts getting Luck in the draft. And they have worked out fine for Peyton so far too. Would be nice if Irsay just left it at that.
                    I guess you might have a point....

                    Ugh, we're going to get worked on Sunday night
                    Super Bowl XLI Champions
                    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      eh, that looks like a pretty clear shot at Peyton to me.


                      leave it at that and its fine. nothing wrong with that statement



                      This though, this is a shot at Peyton. One bringing up Brady, two bringing up Eli's Giants. Three talking about numbers vs Super Bowl wins, especially saying how Brady didn't have the numbers, but had more rings while Peyton had the numbers, but less rings.
                      Not necessarily... He could be pointing out how those teams did a better job of surrounding their star QB with a team that had better odds in the playoffs.

                      I just absolutely cannot imagine Irsay intending to take a shot at Manning.
                      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

                        He's obviously talking about having a good defense to supplement a good offense but he didn't exactly word it the right way. I don't think he's throwing Manning under the bus, he's just saying that we weren't built to beat a NE team on the road in snowy conditions for example. For all the regular season domination the team had for most of a decade how could it be anything BUT a disappointment that we only have one ring to show for it.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          If Robert Kraft said stuff like that about Tom Brady I suspect a lot of posters here would have a different opinion. I know there's a handful of you guys that love Irsay, for reasons he has nothing to do with, to put it lightly (research what happened when he had a say in roster decisions), but frankly I think these people have been brainwashed. I just don't think people understand that the best thing he ever did (by a HUGE margin) for his Indy legacy, was hire Bill Polian. Irsay never hires Polian the Indianpolis Colts don't exist. There's no reason to assume they do, absolutely none. And that's not me staking out a camp for Polian either, he made a number of mistakes in his last 3 or so years here, just me pointing out that Jim Irsay really doesn't know dick about football. Or frankly, anything.

                          Yeah, it's obvious I dislike Irsay. But refute any of that.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            You can't totally say it was 100%. Sure it worked out good so far, the Team certainly over achieved last year, but maybe to their own detriment.

                            We know that the Browns were prepared to give up their entire draft for Luck. So the Colts would of had about 18 picks in that draft if they kept Peyton. So the team could have rebuilt pretty easily around Peyton and give it one last go for a SuperBowl over the next 3-4 years. Its not all doom and gloom like they said it was with the salary cap. This team rebuilt its entire Defense every 3 years anyway. They never resign anybody on the Defensive side of the ball anyway unless they developed into a pro-bowler.

                            Anyways given Irsay's comments I hope Manning demolishes them on Sunday.
                            We could have done what you say. Sure. But at the time you don't know how willing they were to continue with Peyton after the neck surgery. There would have been suspicions and fear that he would not be able to play at the top level.
                            Moreover and most importantly, you got a rare prospect that will be your franchise QB for the next 15 years. With Manning, we might have had 3 years max and regardless how he would have fared, we'd be looking for a new QB in a short time and there is a good chance a franchise one won't be available.

                            As it has been said, Luck was too good to pass and it was the right move. You think of the future even if that means a possible scenario of sacrificing short term success.
                            Never forget

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              Irsay never hires Polian the Indianpolis Colts don't exist. There's no reason to assume they do, absolutely none. And that's not me staking out a camp for Polian either, he made a number of mistakes in his last 3 or so years here, just me pointing out that Jim Irsay really doesn't know dick about football. Or frankly, anything.

                              Yeah, it's obvious I dislike Irsay. But refute any of that.

                              No, if Irsay's Colts don't draft Peyton Manning, the Indianapolis Colts don't exist. That decision was made collectively by Irsay/Polian/Mora (all of them agreed on Peyton) with Irsay having the final say, just like he did with the Manning/Luck decision in 2012. Polian brought in a lot of talent during his first eight years here, but plenty of NFL minds could have had success if their starting piece was Peyton Manning. I'm not discounting the job that Polian did in the first half of his tenure here, but he wasn't the only person who could have had success.

                              Irsay deciding to hire Polian in 1997 shows that Irsay is a good owner. He knew from his previous mistakes that he didn't know enough to build a roster around their Number 1 draft pick, so he decided to hire a proven football mind like Polian. He also made a fantastic hiring decision with Dungy in 2002. Remember, it was Irsay, not Polian, who went after Dungy. A decade later in 2012, he made difficult decisions (canning the Polians, releasing Manning) that have worked out well for the franchise so far.

                              All Irsay has done for the last 15 years is preside over a franchise that has transformed from a dumpster fire into one of the premier franchises in the NFL. He oversees a franchise that is absolutely brilliant at marketing itself over the entire state. Not bad for an idiot.......

                              I wish Irsay would have kept his mouth shut about the Manning-era playoff record on the eve of Manning's return to Indy, but Irsay is far more intelligent than people give him credit for. The Colts' continued success is perfect evidence of that.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-16-2013, 08:28 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                If Robert Kraft said stuff like that about Tom Brady I suspect a lot of posters here would have a different opinion. I know there's a handful of you guys that love Irsay, for reasons he has nothing to do with, to put it lightly (research what happened when he had a say in roster decisions), but frankly I think these people have been brainwashed. I just don't think people understand that the best thing he ever did (by a HUGE margin) for his Indy legacy, was hire Bill Polian. Irsay never hires Polian the Indianpolis Colts don't exist. There's no reason to assume they do, absolutely none. And that's not me staking out a camp for Polian either, he made a number of mistakes in his last 3 or so years here, just me pointing out that Jim Irsay really doesn't know dick about football. Or frankly, anything.
                                Yeah, it's obvious I dislike Irsay. But refute any of that.
                                Can't have it both ways as Irsay did hire Polian and finally wised up when Polian tried to gift wrap the team to his son. Sounds like two good moves to me.
                                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X