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

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

    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
    Carolina and Cam Newton in particular hadn't really had many things go against them all year. 15-1, and they blew away the Seahawks (despite the late rally) and the Cardinals. Denver was the first time a defense really 'punched them in the mouth' and physically shook Cam Newton. And they didn't respond well.

    I agree, you simply can't act entitled to celebrate and then sulk when things don't go your way. He can still come back and still be an elite QB next year though.

    Many are going to say this was a 'bad' super bowl but I actually enjoyed the 'sloppiness' because it was mostly Denver rattling them. Seeing an extremely talented team taken off their rails and scramble try and figure out what's going wrong can be fun when it's not your team.
    I think most people will say it was a bad Super Bowl, I am one of them, because the Panthers defense was not dominate like the Broncos. The Broncos defense was a joy to watch with how they dominated the Panthers offense, but on the other side it was more due to the fact Peyton could not do anything really. If it was a true defensive battle I think it would have been more enjoyable, but it was more of the Broncos beating on the Panthers while the Broncos could not even get started due to the limitations from their QB.

    Comment


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

      Peyton got his ring.... please make your retirement press conference in about a month or so #18.

      For those who are bored... One of my stories did make the paper last week. http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_n...12776e64a.html
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by RWB View Post
        Peyton got his ring.... please make your retirement press conference in about a month or so #18.

        For those who are bored... One of my stories did make the paper last week. http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_n...12776e64a.html
        Is his retirement when the statute of limitations on the rest of the stories expires?
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


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

          Great NFL season for me.

          Peyton rides off into the sunset with ring #2.
          I win $150 for my family fantasy league.
          I win $35 for SB winner/total score pool.

          Time to buy some lotto tickets.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            And Cam was just pissy because someone informed him on the taxes he owes in CA.

            If the Panthers win the Super Bowl, Newton will earn another $102,000 in playoff bonuses, but if they lose he will only net another $51,000. The Panthers will have about 206 total duty days during 2016, including the playoffs, preseason, regular season and organized team activities (OTAs), which Newton must attend or lose $500,000. Seven of those duty days will be in California for the Super Bowl and another four will be in the Golden State for road games against St. Louis Los Angeles and Oakland next season.

            Win on Sunday, and Newton will pay California a total of $159,560 in taxes in 2016. Lose, and he will pay $159,200, based on an income reduction of $51,000.

            To determine what Newton will pay California on his Super Bowl winnings alone, we will ignore the four 2016 season duty days and pretend they are being played elsewhere. In looking at the seven days Newton will spend in California this week for Super Bowl 50, he will pay the state $101,600 on $102,000 of income should the Panthers be victorious or $101,360 on $51,000 should they lose.

            The result: Newton will pay California 99.6% of his Super Bowl earnings if the Panthers win. Losing means his effective tax rate will be a whopping 198.8%. Oh yeah, he will also pay the IRS 40.5% on his earnings.
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade.../#699dfb1e50a6


            Ouch.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
              Is his retirement when the statute of limitations on the rest of the stories expires?
              Considering you and I have met at the forum parties we can talk.... but yeah I still wouldn't feel real comfortable putting everything out there for public consumption.
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

              Comment


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

                “I think Peyton’s done in Denver … he’s maybe done everywhere,’’ said Archie, who added, “That’s my guess.’’...
                If he wants to play some more football, he’s going to have to go to another team. He’d be 40. I don’t know. We have not talked about it.


                SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Archie Manning figures the conversation will come at some point in the next few weeks.

                After his son Peyton gets some time to enjoy his second Super Bowl championship, Archie will talk to him about the future. Does Peyton, who turns 40 in March, want to keep playing?

                “I want to hear his side of it first. I have some ideas,” Archie Manning said outside the Broncos locker room at Levi’s Stadium after the Super Bowl 50 win. “I would never tell Peyton what to do, what not to do. I’ll lay some things out for him. He knows. If he wants to play some more football, he’s going to have to go to another team. He’d be 40. I don’t know. We have not talked about it. The first thing I want to do is I’m just going to say talk to me, tell me what’s on your mind.”

                Peyton is expected to ride off into retirement. If he does want to play, as his father said, it will have to be with another team. The Broncos will save $19 million in salary-cap space by releasing Manning and turning the controls over to Brock Osweiler. It seems unlikely Manning will force John Elway to do that, though.

                “I think Peyton’s done in Denver … he’s maybe done everywhere,’’ said Archie, who added, “That’s my guess.’’

                For Archie, this was a tough year watching Peyton deal with a foot injury that sidelined him and then questions about whether Osweiler was the Broncos’ better option at quarterback. Manning had 17 interceptions in the regular season, and looked like he had no arm strength left at times.


                A few months ago, could Archie have imagined Peyton holding the Lombardi Trophy?

                “Absolutely not,” he said. “I didn’t think he was going to play again. I really didn’t. His foot was bothering him and Brock was playing well. I just said, well, that’s football. He’s always looked at the good times he’s had and all the great health he enjoyed for so many years. Just for him to get back to play again and kind of help them get that No. 1 seed.”

                Archie said Peyton’s relief appearance against the Chargers in Week 17 may have been his biggest contribution to the Broncos in his four years with the team. Instead of being a No. 5 seed, the Broncos got the No. 1 seed in the AFC playoffs with the win over San Diego.

                As Archie stood in the hallway, he glanced at his phone and noted he had 200 text messages. Nearby, Giants quarterback Eli Manning stood with his mother and Peyton’s children. Archie has been lucky enough to watch his sons win four Super Bowls. This year was a tough one, though.

                “This season was hard,” Archie said. “Peyton spoiled us a little bit. This season was hard, so different. That’s what life is and football has so many similarities. Dealing with adversity, that’s what life is about.”

                Archie noted Peyton ran the Broncos scout team and was a backup for a game, two things he had never done before. But this week, Peyton seemed at peace.

                “I thought he had a real calm about him,” Archie said. “He called a couple of times and he was kind of calmly curious about what was going on, who was here, who we were seeing. He’s been on that side of it when he wasn’t playing and all the things we get involved in. There was a real calmness about him, that’s what I noticed.”

                Additional reporting by Paul Schwartz
                http://nypost.com/2016/02/08/peytons...ium=SocialFlow
                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: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                  Did Cam ever address not diving for the football? I have a couple of theories... Obviously, one of them is I'm still wondering if he was injured early in the game. The other is, I wonder if he didn't dive into the pile when he thought the ball was going to take a hop and stopped to adjust to the ball... and then the ball was scooped and didn't squirt out like it looked like it was going to (like he expected)?

                  Whatever the case, it's one of those defining moments in a loss that just doesn't look good. Cam spent the 2 weeks telling us we'd never seen someone like him in the SB when the truth is, we've seen 50 losing QB's in the SB. He'd been reading his own hype just a little too long and I think the game wasn't as simple for him as he thought it was going to be.

                  The Denver D was a well-coached, well prepared squad.
                  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: Superbowl 50.... Manning: The Last Rodeo?

                    Who is this wuss at ESPN? I've never heard of him.

                    Mike Sando, ESPN.comVerified account
                    ‏@SandoESPN
                    That's what you do, kids. You drink lots of beer after big games, just like Peyton. #rolemodel


                    Why is our society so freaking soft nowadays? A 40 year old can't even talk about drinking beer after winning the Super Bowl without someone whining about it.

                    Comment


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

                      Peyton is so scripted. He was scripted enough to say that he wants to drink Budweiser's twice. In his final moment on the glory stage he's peddling beer.

                      The man has a computer for a brain.

                      Comment


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

                        Considering he wasn't paid by Anheuser-Busch, I'd imagine it was off the cuff and a glimpse at the real Peyton.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Considering he wasn't paid by Anheuser-Busch, I'd imagine it was off the cuff and a glimpse at the real Peyton.
                          Hate to say it, but I think it was scripted.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment


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

                            He owns a stake of two of the mega-brewer's distributors in his native state of Louisiana, according to trade publication Beer Business Daily.

                            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-and-gatorade/

                            He didn't say he was going to have beers. He said Budweiser twice.
                            Last edited by speakout4; 02-08-2016, 04:51 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              The NFL prohibits athletes from endorsing alcohol companies like that. It might be, but I doubt it. I wonder if they'll fine him for doing it.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                And Cam was just pissy because someone informed him on the taxes he owes in CA.


                                http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade.../#699dfb1e50a6


                                Ouch.
                                Proving, once again, that the biggest crooks are employed by the government.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X