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

Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

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

  • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    They are still SB losses where they were favored to win the score doesn't really matter beyond that.
    Of course the score matters. A loss is a loss of course, but we're talking about whether the QB should take any blame for the loss. I'm trying to remember Brady's SB losses and whether he himself was detrimental to the team and I don't recall anything egregious. It's hard to pin the Giant's loss on Brady. Meanwhile, there's little argument Manning was actually detrimental to the Broncos against Seattle. As great of a regular season as he had, and even into the playoffs, Manning couldn't play that badly and expect to win no matter what else happened.

    You have to own it when you play badly. If you have a reputation for playing badly in big games, and you play badly in the biggest game of all, particularly following the season Manning had... then you're not going to change that perception. You're going to add to it.
    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: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Of course the score matters. A loss is a loss of course, but we're talking about whether the QB should take any blame for the loss. I'm trying to remember Brady's SB losses and whether he himself was detrimental to the team and I don't recall anything egregious. It's hard to pin the Giant's loss on Brady. Meanwhile, there's little argument Manning was actually detrimental to the Broncos against Seattle. As great of a regular season as he had, and even into the playoffs, Manning couldn't play that badly and expect to win no matter what else happened.

      You have to own it when you play badly. If you have a reputation for playing badly in big games, and you play badly in the biggest game of all, particularly following the season Manning had... then you're not going to change that perception. You're going to add to it.
      I don't know which Giants game you're referring too, but in their second meeting Tom got called for intentional grounding in the endzone which resulted in a safety. Not to mention Brady was picked off when the Pats were leading 15-17. They ended up going on to lose 21-17.

      I think that fact that people don't remember those things, gives some legs to BBfan's point.

      Biggest play of Super Bowl XLVI belongs to unlikely hero Blackburn
      http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...hero-blackburn

      I bet that wouldn't be the type of headline for Peyton. I just skimmed the article, but I don't see any criticism of Tom.
      Last edited by Since86; 02-05-2014, 02:28 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

        I think that Brady has received plenty of criticism for the two losses against the Giants. It's what keeps most people from putting him as the GOAT above Montana, especially the first one which would have completed the perfect season and given him 4 Super Bowl rings in 7 seasons. His historic offense only put up 14 points that game, though in fairness to him he did lead an 80 yard touchdown drive to go up 14-10 with under 3 minutes left. It took a helmet catch for the Giants to sail into victory on the next possession. Four years later, there was plenty of criticism for Brady when the Pats didn't avenge the Super Bowl 42 loss. Brady wasn't awful by any means, but he wasn't very great either. There was the safety and the late interception. Eli certainly outplayed him down the stretch.

        The fact that Brady hasn't won a ring in a while is why a good number of people would have been willing to move Manning past Brady if he had pulled off the win against Seattle. The opportunity was certainly there. It would have given Manning a late career Super Bowl ring, something that Brady doesn't have, and he would have gone through Brady to get it. Some people would have always said that 3 is better than 2, but I think that plenty would have thought that Manning winning this latest Super Bowl at 37 after the historic season would have been more impressive than anything that Brady had done, and thus they would have moved him above Brady had he pulled it out. Since Brady's 3 championships were basically with the same roster, plenty of people would have given Manning the nod for winning one at an old age with a completely different team.

        But it didn't happen and Manning missed the opportunity. Sure, Brady's three Super Bowl rings were a while ago now. But Manning's one Super Bowl ring was quite a while ago too. Brady's last ring came after the 2004 season, and Manning's one ring came after the 2006 season. As time goes on, the difference between the 04 and 06 season is pretty miniscule. 5 Super Bowl appearances with 3 old rings and good Super Bowl stats is better than 3 Super Bowl appearances with 1 old ring and extremely mediocre Super Bowl stats, including arguably the biggest meltdown in Super Bowl history.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-05-2014, 03:02 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I think that Brady has received plenty of criticism for the two losses against the Giants. It's what keeps most people from putting him as the GOAT above Montana, especially the first one which would have completed the perfect season and given him 4 Super Bowl rings in 7 seasons. His historic
          And as time goes on Brady is getting pushed back into the pack because the talking heads are pushing Belichick needs more credit for what the Patriots have done. Actually Manning and Brady having been taking the hits for awhile.
          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


          • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            ......... the difference between the 04 and 06 season is pretty miniscule.
            Well, in years, of course it's almost nothing, but if you look at days (730) it seems to be a lot more. And let's not even go to hours (17520). THAT'S a HUGE difference - isn't it ??

            Comment


            • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              And as time goes on Brady is getting pushed back into the pack because the talking heads are pushing Belichick needs more credit for what the Patriots have done. Actually Manning and Brady having been taking the hits for awhile.
              Compared to Manning? I don't think so

              That's what I don't agree with people say Brady is being criticized the same way Manning is they aren't judged the same I mean if Brady is the superior QB shouldn't he be judged higher than Manning? After all its about the body of work and longevity isn't it?

              Comment


              • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                Compared to Manning? I don't think so

                That's what I don't agree with people say Brady is being criticized the same way Manning is they aren't judged the same I mean if Brady is the superior QB shouldn't he be judged higher than Manning? After all its about the body of work and longevity isn't it?
                The Pats lost two Super Bowls to the Giants by a combined 7 points. The Broncos just got beat 43-8, which might very well be the biggest embarrassment in Super Bowl history. That's why there is a difference in tone.

                Comment


                • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  The Pats lost two Super Bowls to the Giants by a combined 7 points. The Broncos just got beat 43-8, which might very well be the biggest embarrassment in Super Bowl history. That's why there is a difference in tone.
                  I guess we're going to conveniently forget that the Pats in the first SB were undefeated up until that game. They were favored to beat the Giants by 14 points. They only scored 14 points.

                  People seem to forget that this isn't even the worst Broncos SB loss. 55-10 vs the Niners was the worst but this just seems worse because its only been a few days removed and well the Broncos had a great offense(which people seem to think actually wins championships even though it doesn't)and were favored by 3 points.

                  But that's not the point nobody says every year that Brady has to win a ring to validate his legacy despite not winning an SB in nearly a decade and already having 3.

                  Before the narrative was Manning had to win a ring he has one then it became he has to win another. And if he had won another it would be he had to win another one after that.

                  They aren't judged the same I don't get how people say otherwise if Brady is better shouldn't he be the one with the higher expectations? He has more rings = Better QB.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    Brady was never called a choking loser ...that never happened with Brady.
                    Yes, it has happened quite often

                    see "Patriots vs. Jets: Who Should Take the Blame for New England's Epic Choke Job?"
                    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/5...epic-choke-job

                    Similar articles appeared in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. They were mostly absent this year, maybe owing to turnover in personnel, and were absent in 2005 as I recall, since 3 rings gives you a one year honeymoon, it seems.



                    I heard several sportscasters equating the Seattle D's domination of Denver to how the Giants D supposedly dominated the Patriots in 2007. Yep, pretty much the same, 43-8 and 17-14. Hardly different at all...
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-05-2014, 03:18 PM.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                      Bleacherreport? It's asked a legitimate question. With Manning, there is no question, it's his fault.

                      This is what the article has to say about TB
                      Tom Brady, the quarterback that has won three Super Bowls, looked frustrated on the field and didn't seem to have any answers for the Jets pass rush. Brady was sacked five times while only completing 29-of-45 passes. To say the offensive line will get a long look in the offseason probably is an understatement.

                      Most egregious, Brady threw an interception in his first series, his first pick in 340 pass attempts, and that seemed to immediately throw the entire Patriots offense out of rhythm. As good as the offense looked in the opening series, it never looked that smooth again until the game really no longer was in doubt.

                      Brady spent the rest of the game on the run, missing his receivers and generally not looking like "Tom Brady."
                      That's really at the same level of the criticism that Manning gets? That's pretty tame.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                        OK, he was tamely called a choking loser
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          OK, he was tamely called a choking loser
                          Quote?
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                            I guess we're going to conveniently forget that the Pats in the first SB were undefeated up until that game. They were favored to beat the Giants by 14 points. They only scored 14 points.

                            People seem to forget that this isn't even the worst Broncos SB loss. 55-10 vs the Niners was the worst but this just seems worse because its only been a few days removed and well the Broncos had a great offense(which people seem to think actually wins championships even though it doesn't)and were favored by 3 points.

                            But that's not the point nobody says every year that Brady has to win a ring to validate his legacy despite not winning an SB in nearly a decade and already having 3.

                            Before the narrative was Manning had to win a ring he has one then it became he has to win another. And if he had won another it would be he had to win another one after that.

                            They aren't judged the same I don't get how people say otherwise if Brady is better shouldn't he be the one with the higher expectations? He has more rings = Better QB.

                            In my earlier post, I addressed that first Pats-Giants Super Bowl. Given the historical success of the 2007 Pats offense, the 14 points were obviously disappointing. But football is a situational game and Brady did lead the Pats on an 80 yard touchdown drive with under 3 minutes left. It took the flukiest play in Super Bowl history for the Giants to pull it out on the next possession. All I'm saying is that had the Pats won that game, no one would have cared that they only score 14 points. But there is no doubt that the 14 points were disappointing for that offense.

                            Regardless, there is a huge difference between losing 17-14 and losing 43-8 and being down 36-0 at one point. They aren't even on the same stratosphere. The Pats loss to the Giants was a disappointment. The Broncos loss to the Seahawks was an epic embarrassment. Yes, that 55-10 Niners-Broncos one was an even worse discrepancy, but this one will forever be remembered as one of the worst.

                            No one was saying that Peyton had to win another ring to validate his legacy. His legacy has been set in stone for a while. In most people's eyes, he is a top five-ish quarterback who has won the most MVP's, won a championship, revolutionized the position, built up a Colts franchise from scratch, and then came back from a brutal injury to have the best statistical quarterbacking season in NFL history. Losing this game doesn't hurt that super impressive legacy. But winning the game would have substantially elevated his legacy and been a massive late career feather in his cap. That's what is key.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                              check out the golfing buddies

                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                                I wonder how many people would pick Manning as their QB for a hypothetical winner take all, life or death, game.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X