Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

2013 Peyton Manning thread

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

  • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    You can do due diligence, but you can't have a crystal ball. Peyton was rehabbing right until the bitter end and was trying everything possible to get on the field for the start of 2011. It wasn't until right before the season started that it became obvious he needed another procedure. I don't think that anyone (Manning/Polian/Irsay) really thought that he would miss the entire season until late August, which was a month after the contract was signed. At worst, they probably thought he would miss a month or so max.

    The perfect evidence for this is that Polian didn't bring Collins in until late August. Sort of an "oh crap, Peyton might actually miss some time" move. I think that Polian did a pretty poor job in his last few years here, but I don't think he was so incompetent that he would have waited until late August to bring in a QB if he felt as early as July that Peyton would miss a huge chunk/all of the season.
    I'm not saying they needed a crystal ball, but you can be very creative with NFL contracts. Why not make the base salary lower, and then fill it with incentives that can easily be reached in order to bump up the pay, if he plays? They didn't do it. Instead, they gave him a full contract, without any way to protect themselves from it, all while telling everyone how great of a deal it was.

    It doesn't take a crystal ball to realize that there is danger on the horizon when your QB just had two neck surgeries and is looking at his third within a year.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Fast forward one year later and the tune was "this contract is a cap killer"

      Here is Peyton saying he took less than what was offered, so it would be more cap friendlier.

      Irsay had the one out after the 2011 season, but he had no more yearly outs if he would have picked up the contract in 2012. He would have been picking up a four year contract. Conversely, Denver had an option to get out of the contract based off of Manning's 2012 season. Would Manning have restructured to allow the Colts to get out of the contract after seeing him play in 2012 as opposed to boxing them in for four years? Only two people know the answer to that and I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

        Peyton restructured his deal in 2007 to give the Colts more cap space. So the guy has a history of taking less money than what is offered, then restructuring deals after they're signed in order to give the Colts financial flexibility. I see no reason why he wouldn't have restructured in 2012. But if Irsay puts provisions in the contract based on amount of play, then there's no reason to do it. Be pro-active instead of reactive.

        EDIT: Not to mention that he restructured his Denver deal just this offseason.
        Last edited by Since86; 10-17-2013, 01:13 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

          My feelings over the whole ordeal have subsided, I just don't like getting pissed on and then told it's just raining. Atleast have the common decency to be honest and say you were looking at this from the view point of the next 10 years, instead of trying to argue that Manning just costs too much.

          Suppose Manning stayed, and didn't restructure his deal, and was putting up similiar numbers would anyone be crying about his contract? No way.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

            Restructuring usually means moving the money around in different ways - various bonuses, deferred money, etc. Doesn't mean he moved the number down.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
              Restructuring only means moving the money around in different ways - various bonuses, etc. Doesn't mean he moved the number down.
              It moves the number that goes towards the cap down, and that's the only thing that matters.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Peyton restructured his deal in 2007 to give the Colts more cap space. So the guy has a history of taking less money than what is offered, then restructuring deals after they're signed in order to give the Colts financial flexibility. I see no reason why he wouldn't have restructured in 2012. But if Irsay puts provisions in the contract based on amount of play, then there's no reason to do it. Be pro-active instead of reactive.

                EDIT: Not to mention that he restructured his Denver deal just this offseason.

                I agree that he probably would have restructured if Irsay would have said, "Hey, I want to keep you and we're going to trade this #1 pick for a bunch of assets that will help you win in the later years of your career."

                But like I've said many times, I think the #1 pick was far more important to the whole thing than any dollars and cents.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                  I think you missed my point. I'm saying Irsay was happy as could be to pay Manning in that final contract. It was all roses, puppy dogs, rainbows, and Cadillacs.... But then the season happened. The worst case scenario came true. In fact, possibly a scenario unfolded that was more than the worst case that was imagined. ...except of course they had the #1 pick at the other end of things.

                  Cap ramifications IMHO probably looked far different after that missed season than they had ever looked before.

                  And I've thought more about Irsay's alleged slam on Peyton. I don't think it's a slam on Peyton, Polian, or Dungy... It's a slam on himself if anything. He got fat and happy with the records and regular season wins but in hindsight can see that with a QB like Manning there should've been more playoff success. Had Irsay realized this sooner things could've been different. Instead, he was caught up in the moment.

                  Irsay had a lot of time to reflect on many things in hindsight.
                  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 don't believe it's hindsight, at all. That's my point.

                    Peyton had two surgeries before he signed the contract, and had his third shortly thereafter. Is it really that hard to envision him missing the entire year, especially when the question mark is surrounding whether or not nerves will re-generate with no one being able to put a time frame on it?

                    If they couldn't forsee Peyton missing the entire year, then I don't see the family staying rich for long, because that's an awfully big red train coming down the tracks right at you for you not to see.

                    I think they didn't think the Colts, as a team, was that bad and when they showed just how awful they were without Manning, a cold dose of reality set in. I think they had no idea they'd be in the running for Luck, and then found themselves in the position needing to find a palatable way out that they could vocalize to the fan base.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I don't believe it's hindsight, at all. That's my point.

                      Peyton had two surgeries before he signed the contract, and had his third shortly thereafter. Is it really that hard to envision him missing the entire year, especially when the question mark is surrounding whether or not nerves will re-generate with no one being able to put a time frame on it?

                      If they couldn't forsee Peyton missing the entire year, then I don't see the family staying rich for long, because that's an awfully big red train coming down the tracks right at you for you not to see.

                      I think they didn't think the Colts, as a team, was that bad and when they showed just how awful they were without Manning, a cold dose of reality set in. I think they had no idea they'd be in the running for Luck, and then found themselves in the position needing to find a palatable way out that they could vocalize to the fan base.
                      Well... we pretty much agree. My 'worst case' scenario that I figured they imagined was Peyton missing some time and possibly the season. But then the team just being terrible was beyond their worst case imagination. So it had to be an eye opener.

                      And that dovetails into my point about the cap ramifications looking far different at that point with a heavy dose of reality setting in during and after the season.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        With a brother that behaves completely different than myself, trying to say Peyton is one way because Eli (and Archie) is that way really really makes me cringe.

                        I agree with this (a brother total opposite of me) but I also had no issue with Eli wanting to be in the best situation for him. I mean that was the smartest decision he ever made.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                          I'm still glad it all worked out the way it did. When the NFL history books are written I still think Luck will be proven to be the better "clutch" QB. I know the Colts relative lack of playoff success is not all on Manning, but I still don't totally trust him when the season is on the line at playoff time. I called the Manning interception in the playoffs last year before it even happened. If Manning wins a SB with the Broncos I will put him in the top 5 of all time.


                          He needs at least one more SB for him to be there for me. Another "one and done" this year would be disastrous to his legacy as many still perceive him as a one and done QB. Might be the most pressure he's facing in this year's post season because he knows the clock is winding down and the Broncos are such huge favs to win it all. Wouldn't that be crazy if the Colts end up being responsible for another Manning early playoff exit this year?
                          Last edited by presto123; 10-17-2013, 02:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                            Again I submit the idea that the coke head idiot owner, got pissed that he just had to pay Manning 26 Million to sit. He got antsy with the #1 pick in his hands, he thought man what happens if Manning suffers another injury? I'm out another 30 million.... Then he seen all the money he could make from #12 jersey's.

                            That is why Manning is pissed off at Irsay. He displayed no faith in him after all those years. Irsay is the worst. You say a year earlier that the contract was great and assured his retirement in Indianapolis and more shots at a super bowl, and then say that contract is a ball and chain, we have to gut the whole team. They were gonna gut half the team anyway.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Again I submit the idea that the coke head idiot owner, got pissed that he just had to pay Manning 26 Million to sit. He got antsy with the #1 pick in his hands, he thought man what happens if Manning suffers another injury? I'm out another 30 million.... Then he seen all the money he could make from #12 jersey's.

                              That is why Manning is pissed off at Irsay. He displayed no faith in him after all those years. Irsay is the worst. You say a year earlier that the contract was great and assured his retirement in Indianapolis and more shots at a super bowl, and then say that contract is a ball and chain, we have to gut the whole team. They were gonna gut half the team anyway.

                              You're forgetting the part where Manning was not fully healthy when we let him go. There was no guarantee that the nerve would come all the way back. Even Manning had concerns about that for quite a while as there was no zip on his passes. It was a no brainer "at the time" to take Luck.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 Peyton Manning thread

                                (In addition to ^^ ...........)

                                Not sure what the exact dates were, but the Colts had to make a financial decision on Manning before OTAs and training camps started. In other words, Irsay would have had to commit to the money before he (or anyone else) knew that Manning would be able to play. Doing THAT would have been stupid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X