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

Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

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

  • Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

    Irsay on Manning (video at link):

    http://wishtv.com/2016/02/02/poll-sh...olt-or-bronco/
    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

  • #2
    Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

    So this is now out there.... Manning to the Rams next season at least something the Rams are interested in.
    Hmmmmm... Warm weather for at least half the games (reality is over half when you consider the season starts before it's cold anywhere). So that is good for tired, achy bones.
    Nice jumpstart PR for a team making a move. And should help put media exposure over the top.
    Manning gets to go after Favre's record.
    QB in LA. Home of the stars. And in the returning season for the Rams so they will be loved next season almost unconditionally as the 'new thing'.
    Lots of reasons that little devil on his shoulder would tell him "You can do this! You're still not done! You'll have all kinds of media exposure in LA to really show the NFL you still got it!"

    OTOH.... A SB win and he can just ride off into the sunset on top. And he can tell himself "I still got it... and teams still want me.... Leave 'em wanting more!! No need to tarnish this SB win and cherry on the top of my career!"

    But a SB loss?
    Or that Favre record?

    The Rams have had internal discussions about bringing Peyton Manning to Los Angeles should he want to play another season, per a league source.


    Manning still is under contract to the Broncos for another year, but most around the league do not expect him to return to Denver next season, if he returns at all.

    Manning still must decide whether he wants to play after this season, and the Rams still are formulating their quarterback plans. But they are monitoring the Manning situation, per a source, which is a sign that the Broncos quarterback could have options next season.

    It also sets up the possibility -- even if it is remote -- that Manning could finish his career in Southern California, just as former Colts quarterback Johnny Unitas did with the San Diego Chargers in 1973 and former New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath did with the Los Angeles Rams in 1977.


    The Rams have discussed signing Peyton Manning if he's available this offseason and wants to continue his career. Christian Petersen/Getty Images
    Rams coach Jeff Fisher said at his season-ending news conference that Case Keenum is the team's starter entering the offseason and Nick Foles and Sean Mannion will be around to compete. The Rams traded for Foles last offseason and signed him to an extension, but the former Philadelphia Eagles starter lost the starting job to Keenum during the season.

    Super Bowl 50 will be Manning's fourth title game in 18 seasons. Given that he came back from spinal fusion surgery in 2011 to play four seasons for the Broncos, along with the injuries that have dotted his past three seasons, including the left foot injury that forced him to miss seven games this season, there have been signs for weeks that Sunday's game might be Manning's last.

    "I've tried to stay in the moment, tried not to look back," Manning said Monday in the opening minutes of his session at the Super Bowl 50 media night. "Just tried to stay in the moment."

    Information from ESPN.com's Jeff Legwold and Nick Wagoner was used in this report.
    ESPN Editorial:
    Peyton Manning will turn 40 in March and his skills are declining. Not a good fit for the Rams -- who, by the way, haven't been to the playoffs in 11 years and have a young, unproven offensive line. Not a good fit for Manning. So if he wants to keep playing next season, Los Angeles isn't the right place.

    And more news...

    Peyton facing post-career hip replacement
    Peyton Manning has undergone his share of surgeries during his career, and he already knows he'll eventually need a hip replaced after his playing days.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14...ng-option-2016
    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


    • #3
      Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

      I have a feeling after Manning wins the super bowl, that report about him using hgh is going to be a big story. Even though the report is bullshlt

      Sent from my Nexus 5X

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

        Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
        I have a feeling after Manning wins the super bowl, that report about him using hgh is going to be a big story. Even though the report is bullshlt

        Sent from my Nexus 5X
        I think it'll blow over or be covered up because whether he did or didn't won't matter to the majority. I think most people will be OK with him if he did it because they will understand why he did and the context of the circumstances.
        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: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I think it'll blow over or be covered up because whether he did or didn't won't matter to the majority. I think most people will be OK with him if he did it because they will understand why he did and the context of the circumstances.
          Stop lyin. It'll blow over because Peyton's bullet proof. I hope the dude opens an agency honestly, no one can manage his own perception like Peyton.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

            I'm having a hard time finding a path to victory for the Broncos. Their D obviously has to stop Newton, but beyond that Manning is going to have to do more than manage the game. And the Panthers are great at creating turnovers. And Manning is great at offering opportunities for turnovers.

            Hopefully, the two weeks of rest has been good for Manning. In true Toby Keith fashion, Manning is not as good as he once was, but he only needs to be good once as he ever was.

            I suppose I could see Newton caught in the moment and being overwhelmed by it all. That's nothing I would count on though.

            I think if I was the Broncos I'd order Manning to STFU and just run the first play. He might be comfortable with changing the first play of the SB at the line of scrimmage but there are 10 other guys out there needing to work through some big game nerves. After watching that ball sail past his head in his first Bronco SB I'm not sure I'd want any possible repeat of that if I could avoid it. Just get that first play out of the way and build from there.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

              Denver is winning guaranteed! I have no doubts.

              Sent from my Nexus 5X

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                I laugh hearing everyone saying Panthers are gonna win. They don't know!

                Sent from my Nexus 5X
                Last edited by BornIndy; 02-07-2016, 01:06 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                  Manning was reportedly in tears when addressing the team today. Make of that what you will.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                    Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                    Manning was reportedly in tears when addressing the team today. Make of that what you will.
                    I read 'near tears' and that he didn't address it being his last game (or 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, thatís teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                      c'mon, it's his last game, he's not a moron. he's already acknowledged he's going to need a hip replacement down the line and will "deal with the neck." Peyton's a relic in NFL terms, but he's only turning 40 next month, how many 40 year olds you know saying "yeah, gonna have to get that hip replaced eventually?" he knows he can't make it through another season. plus if we're being honest he freaking stunk this year. if he keeps going it'll be even worse than this Kobe swan song year.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                        Shout out to me for booking a 6:10 flight when the game starts at 4:30 local time. Masterful planning on my part. It's not like I booked this a while ago either--I did it Wednesday. I'm a dumbass.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                          I'm rooting for Newton to lose for two reasons. One for being a dumb@ss and trying to play the race card for no damn reason and second for dancing like a fool in the end zone.

                          Sent from my Nexus 5X

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            Shout out to me for booking a 6:10 flight when the game starts at 4:30 local time. Masterful planning on my part. It's not like I booked this a while ago either--I did it Wednesday. I'm a dumbass.
                            Hasn't the SB consistently started at 6:30EST for several years now?
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                              Jim Nantz and Phil Simms doing the game. Nantz is OK.....don't like Simms at all. Oh well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X