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

Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

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

  • Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...gn=Twitter_atn

    Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

    Reggie Wayne is going to be one of the trickiest Hall of Fame debates among this generation of wide receivers. That clock to Canton conversation could start as soon as this offseason.

    "Thirty-six, man. Kids growing up," Wayne explained to Mike Chappell of RTV6 in Indianapolis. "It's time for family decisions."


    Wayne talked about wanting to spend more time with his three children, including his oldest, his 11-year old son who is playing football. He repeated the phrase "family decisions" a few times.

    "It's real, man," he said of possibly retiring. "It's tough, it really is. You have to decide if you want to make that sacrifice again. A lot goes into it."

    This is the first we've heard about Wayne possibly retiring, but it makes a lot of sense. He will be 37 years old next year, and does not have a contract for the 2015 season. Wayne is still productive, but he's no longer the same player. He hasn't had many big plays this season, and he's on pace for 848 receiving yards.

    Wayne has returned from a torn ACL much better than a lot of other receivers in their mid-thirties, but he may not enjoy playing the game at a diminished level. It's also worth wondering if he'd be willing to take a reduction in pay from his average just under $6 million-per-season the last three years. (Or what kind of contract the Colts would give him.)

    Wayne insists he is a Colt for life.

    "I know what I'm not going to do is go somewhere else and play for one year, two years. Absolutely not. Nobody else. I don't have time to be dipping and dabbing, one year here, maybe one year somewhere else."

    Add it all up, and it wouldn't be a surprise if this were Wayne's final run with the team.

  • #2
    Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

    I admittedly have not researched it at all, but I have a hard time with the idea that Wayne is a "tricky" HOF debate. Seems like it's a no brainer to me.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
      I admittedly have not researched it at all, but I have a hard time with the idea that Wayne is a "tricky" HOF debate. Seems like it's a no brainer to me.
      Probably because he was always option #2 when Marvin was here. Most people think "Manning to Harrison" more than anyone else(although at this point I just think Manning to(insert any WR/TE/RB) )

      Its really more about name recognition above all else. Its not as if he has the diva personality of many WR's or had a lot of endorsements for that matter(then again neither did Marvin)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

        I mentioned somewhere here that I wondered if he might be thinking retirement and that is why he's playing with that brace on his arm... versus getting it fixed or sitting out games letting it heal. I suspected he wanted to play knowing there might not be a next 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, thatís teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

          Wayne was Manning's #1 option from 2007-2010. He even led the Colts in receiving all the way back in 2004. He and Marvin were pretty much interchangeable as far as the top receiver from 2004 onward.

          Wayne's numbers are definitely HOF worthy- he is in the top 10 all time in receptions and yards.

          Fortunately the Colts are well equipped to deal with Wayne's retirement whenever it happens. Hilton and Moncrief are a good 1-2 option along with Fleener and Allen. They will need to sign another WR in the offseason.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

            Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
            Wayne was Manning's #1 option from 2007-2010. He even led the Colts in receiving all the way back in 2004. He and Marvin were pretty much interchangeable as far as the top receiver from 2004 onward.

            Wayne's numbers are definitely HOF worthy- he is in the top 10 all time in receptions and yards.

            Fortunately the Colts are well equipped to deal with Wayne's retirement whenever it happens. Hilton and Moncrief are a good 1-2 option along with Fleener and Allen. They will need to sign another WR in the offseason.
            I agree but my point was that when Harrison was here Reggie was considered an afterthought in comparision to pundits. I mean its "Manning to Harrison" you heard the most(he has most of Manning's TDs) compared to Manning and Wayne (even though he has second most)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

              I had a feeling Reggie was going to retire when he got emotional before the Giants game. He looks like a shell of himself lately, and I would expect him to retire due to obvious diminishing skills
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                It's really the logjam of receivers that makes Reggie's case complicated. In the next 5 years, you'll have Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Terrell Owens, and Randy Moss all trying to get in. Then someone like Andre Johnson coming up from behind. That's a long line of receivers to try to wade through, and the voters have not always been kind to receivers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                  Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                  Wayne was Manning's #1 option from 2007-2010. He even led the Colts in receiving all the way back in 2004. He and Marvin were pretty much interchangeable as far as the top receiver from 2004 onward.

                  Wayne's numbers are definitely HOF worthy- he is in the top 10 all time in receptions and yards.

                  Fortunately the Colts are well equipped to deal with Wayne's retirement whenever it happens. Hilton and Moncrief are a good 1-2 option along with Fleener and Allen. They will need to sign another WR in the offseason.

                  The main difference between Harrison and Wayne is touchdowns. Harrison caught double digit touchdowns for eight straight years from 99-06. Wayne OTOH only hit double digits three times in his career. Harrison has 128 touchdowns to Wayne's 82.

                  Here is an interesting fact: Wayne (14,202) is just 378 yards behind Harrison (14,580). He'd need about 95 yards a game to pass Harrison this season. Possible, but I doubt it happens. He'll likely end up just a hair shy of Harrison on the all-time yards mark.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                    The most reliable wide receiver in the NFL for basically a decade 2004 to now. What more do you need to be in the hall of fame?


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      The most reliable wide receiver in the NFL for basically a decade 2004 to now. What more do you need to be in the hall of fame?
                      They are a-holes when it comes to receivers. Marvin Harrison should have without question been first ballot.

                      I'd put Fitzgerald over Wayne. The only time he had a great quarterback was those couple of years where Warner came back from the dead out of nowhere. Fitzgerald's numbers are outstanding given the overall low quality of quarterbacking.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                        Wayne has a ring and Fitzgerald doesn't, so in my book that gives Wayne an edge
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                          Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                          Wayne has a ring and Fitzgerald doesn't, so in my book that gives Wayne an edge
                          That and he has the second most playoff receptions, trailing only Jerry Rice.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                            Wayne has a ring and Fitzgerald doesn't, so in my book that gives Wayne an edge
                            Marvin has a ring and he didn't get in. Besides Fitzgerald was literally seconds away from getting his ring too so I don't think that alone is a fair argument.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Reggie Wayne considering retirement after 2014

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Marvin has a ring and he didn't get in. Besides Fitzgerald was literally seconds away from getting his ring too so I don't think that alone is a fair argument.
                              So what? If it weren't for Hank "stone hands" Baskett, Reggie would have two rings. I don't care how close Fitzgerald came, he didn't get one and Reggie did. If the numbers are similar, you have to use something to draw the line.
                              Last edited by travmil; 12-06-2014, 03:37 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X