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

  • #91
    Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
    Peyton Manning is the Nolan Ryan of the NFL. Greatest stats. Great guy. Dominant. But he is not hands down the GOAT. Top 5? Yes.

    Favre
    Montana
    Brady
    Elway
    Johnny U

    Could all be considered as good or greater. But Peyton is not done.
    I wouldn't put Favre over him, but it's hard to argue with the other four guys.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

      See I would put Favre over Elway and maybe Brady. I am considering tangibles, skill, fortitude, surrounding team, and SB wins. Favre has all of those. Whether in -10, 10, or 70 degrees. Peyton needs the right conditions, the right team, and the right opponent.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

        I don't know about right conditions the Colts won the SB in the rain that wasn't exactly ideal now was it. Funny how the weather was a non factor when it came down to it.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
          See I would put Favre over Elway and maybe Brady. I am considering tangibles, skill, fortitude, surrounding team, and SB wins. Favre has all of those. Whether in -10, 10, or 70 degrees. Peyton needs the right conditions, the right team, and the right opponent.

          Yeah, but he was also pretty reckless with the ball throughout his career. He threw interceptions at a way higher rate than a Manning or Brady.

          But there's no doubt that Favre had several things over Manning: arm strength, ability to play in cold weather, better at improvising after a play breaks down. I'd still put Manning and definitely Brady above him though, but that's just me. I can buy into the Favre over Elway argument though.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

            Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
            So does it hurt his legacy that he lost this game?
            Yes. Especially if this is the last time he gets there. It all depends on how much one weights the regular season but to me unless he wins it next year Manning (like Farve) can be in the conversation for GOAT but he is not a serious contender.

            Is it just me or does Manning not firing on all cylanders effect the rest of his team more than any other QB in history? A couple of games in the 2006 run not withstanding it just seems if Peyton is off his game even a little everybody else and all other phases of the game completely under perform.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

              Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
              Yes. Especially if this is the last time he gets there. It all depends on how much one weights the regular season but to me unless he wins it next year Manning (like Farve) can be in the conversation for GOAT but he is not a serious contender.

              Is it just me or does Manning not firing on all cylanders effect the rest of his team more than any other QB in history? A couple of games in the 2006 run not withstanding it just seems if Peyton is off his game even a little everybody else and all other phases of the game completely under perform.
              Favre can be in the conversation but Manning has to win another ? Even though he's already been to one more SB since Favre on a different team no less. Otherwise I do agree the teams live and die by Manning except in 2006. Very strange indeed.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                Favre can be in the conversation but Manning has to win another ? Even though he's already been to one more SB since Favre on a different team no less. Otherwise I do agree the teams live and die by Manning except in 2006. Very strange indeed.
                Actually I mean't both can be in the conversation but neither is a serious contender.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                  Favre was a great QB but those 336 interceptions are a bit much to swallow.

                  A thought question- imagine Tom Brady continued to throw interceptions at the rate he threw them this year, very much an off year by his standards. How many more seasons would Brady have to play in order to match Favre in career interceptions?




                  answer: 19 more seasons.


                  Brady: 134
                  Montana: 139
                  Manning: 219
                  Elway: 226
                  Favre: 336


                  and, not surprisingly, his INT rate ROSE in postseason play.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: Peyton Manning's legacy if Denver wins SB XLVIII

                    Brady was more careful with the ball still is really but namely early in his career then when they got more offense oriented that total ended up rising.

                    Favre was a gunslinger you take the good with the bad a lot like Eli

                    Comment


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

                      If you judged Peyton Manning's legacy / career as higher than Tom Brady's a year ago, 6 months ago, or even a week ago, it seems logical to think that any supposed gap between them has only widened, in Peyton's favor.

                      If you had Peyton Manning's legacy /career as lower than Tom Brady's a year ago, 6 months ago, or even a week ago, it seems logical to think that any supposed gap between them has narrowed, in Peyton's favor.

                      Peyton had a better season and yes a better postseason than Tom Brady, who went 1-1 instead of 2-1, and had a subpar game in the Patriots loss to Manning's team, wuth Manning playing exceptionally well.

                      Peyton was better yesterday, since Brady was not proficient enough to even be permitted to play. 0-1 is in fact better than 0-0.

                      Yes, that flies in the face of the stupid tendency to put EVERYTHING on the outcome of one game, the SUPER BOWL, the loser of which is THE NFL'S BIGGEST LOSER, supposedly.

                      You know, the stupid logic that, for example, ridicules the 2007 Patriots for "choking" in the Super Bowl as a big favorite, something that, after all, nobody else did. Nobody else lost in the Super Bowl that day! San Diego, losers of the AFCCG to NE two weeks before, were better than New England that year, or at least had a more successful postseason, being 0-0 in the Super Bowl. As were the Colts, losers of in the division round to San Diego, who also went 0-0 in the Super Bowl. Everyone knows it is of utmost importance to "never have lost in the Super Bowl" (even though you avoided that fate by losing sooner.)

                      Does anyone else see how silly this popularly applied "logic" is?
                      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

                        Yes that's usually the case when someone loses the SB they are the biggest loser and since its Manning even more so.

                        Sucks but that's how it is. Is it fair? No but nothing really is.

                        I'm sure over time it will be looked back as rather impressive he made it back to the SB when two years ago nobody thought this was even possible.

                        However not right now.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          If you judged Peyton Manning's legacy / career as higher than Tom Brady's a year ago, 6 months ago, or even a week ago, it seems logical to think that any supposed gap between them has only widened, in Peyton's favor.

                          If you had Peyton Manning's legacy /career as lower than Tom Brady's a year ago, 6 months ago, or even a week ago, it seems logical to think that any supposed gap between them has narrowed, in Peyton's favor.

                          Peyton had a better season and yes a better postseason than Tom Brady, who went 1-1 instead of 2-1, and had a subpar game in the Patriots loss to Manning's team, wuth Manning playing exceptionally well.

                          Peyton was better yesterday, since Brady was not proficient enough to even be permitted to play. 0-1 is in fact better than 0-0.

                          Yes, that flies in the face of the stupid tendency to put EVERYTHING on the outcome of one game, the SUPER BOWL, the loser of which is THE NFL'S BIGGEST LOSER, supposedly.

                          You know, the stupid logic that, for example, ridicules the 2007 Patriots for "choking" in the Super Bowl as a big favorite, something that, after all, nobody else did. Nobody else lost in the Super Bowl that day! San Diego, losers of the AFCCG to NE two weeks before, were better than New England that year, or at least had a more successful postseason, being 0-0 in the Super Bowl. As were the Colts, losers of in the division round to San Diego, who also went 0-0 in the Super Bowl. Everyone knows it is of utmost importance to "never have lost in the Super Bowl" (even though you avoided that fate by losing sooner.)

                          Does anyone else see how silly this popularly applied "logic" is?

                          That is an outstanding analysis. I agree 100%.

                          Peyton's legacy wasn't "hurt" by last night. Beating the Pats in the AFCCG and then getting drilled in the Super Bowl is still infinitely better than if they would have lost to the Chargers in the Divisional Round. It's also infinitely better than losing to the Pats in the AFCCG. Peyton had the best statistical season in the history of the position at age 37, just two years removed from a career threatening injury. He won a record 5th MVP and went to his third Super Bowl. It would be absolute insanity to think that his 2013 season, which was one of the finest in the history of the position, "hurt" his legacy. This 2013 season means that his career is more impressive than it was a year ago. Saying that he "hurt" his legacy implies that people think less of him than they did a year ago, which makes no sense at all.

                          While he didn't "hurt" his legacy last night, what's key is that he missed out on a golden opportunity to substantially elevate it. There was far more for him to gain last night than lose. Had he won this late career Super Bowl after such a gaudy regular season, it would have caused a lot of people to revise their GOAT rankings and move him up their list. It would have been an incredible late career feather in his cap that would have served him extremely well in any GOAT debate. So while he didn't "hurt" his legacy, he for the second time missed an opportunity to cash in on another Super Bowl. Like I said, there was far more to gain here than lose. Losing meant that most people have similar thoughts about him to what they had before this Super Bowl. But winning would have really made people re-evaluate his place amongst the elite.

                          Comment


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

                            By playing badly he, for lack of a better word, 'confirmed' for many people the knock against him and that is his coming up small in the playoffs. That's not to say people think he sucks... Few would neglect to put him with the greats of the game. But last night was his opportunity to elevate his name past that and change the argument to whether he is the best of all time.

                            The argument can still be made, but there's plenty of ammo for anyone who says he is not the GOAT.

                            He didn't even have to win last night... He just needed to play well and hopefully make a game of it. Even if the team didn't play well, Manning simply didn't need to be one of the symptoms of the loss. He needed to be a bright spot. He was not.
                            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

                              [QUOTE=Sollozzo;1782017]While he didn't "hurt" his legacy last night, what's key is that he missed out on a golden opportunity to substantially elevate it. /QUOTE]

                              That is the perfect way to state it. Many would certainly disagree but had he won the game then in my mind his body of work clearly pushes him into that upper tier of QB's that includes Montana, Elway & Brady.

                              Comment


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

                                Even if he had played well and lost it wouldn't have mattered because its still a LOSS

                                There aren't style points in the NFL especially in the SB.

                                People already made up their minds about him to begin with nothing was going to change even if the Broncos won. They would've said "Peyton Manning needs to win another ring to prove he can win the big game" even though he's already won the big game.

                                You know the same exact thing they said up until the Saints SB and this one.

                                The same exact thing they're going to say about him next season(even though he's "out of the conversation")

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X