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:
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

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

According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

    I didn't know there was a Madame Tussands Museum in Orlando.


    • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset


      • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

        Reggie Miller was there too but this was the best pic


        • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

          Peyton's getting a statue outside LOS in 2017


          • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

            NFL clears Peyton Manning after 7-month HGH investigation

            The NFL has cleared Peyton Manning after a seven-month investigation found no credible evidence he used human growth hormone or violated the league’s performance-enhancing drug policy, the league said Monday.

            Manning and his wife, Ashley, “were fully cooperative with the investigation and provided both interviews and access to all records sought by the investigators,” the league said in a statement.

            “Initiated in January, the investigation was led by the NFL's security and legal teams with support from expert consultants and other professionals. The investigation involved witness interviews, a review of relevant records and other materials, online research, and laboratory analysis and review.”

            The investigation stemmed from an Al-Jazeera America report, which secretly recorded a former anti-aging clinic intern named Charlie Sly making allegations against a variety of professional athletes.

            The league continues to investigate four other NFL players named in the report: Green Bay Packers linebackers Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers, Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison and free agent linebacker Mike Neal.

            Last week, the league rejected the NFL Players Association’s assertion that affidavits submitted by those players constituted cooperation. Neal’s interview is expected to be conducted this week, with others to follow.

            “As a former player, Peyton Manning is free to do whatever he believes is in his best interest,” the NFL Players Association said in a statement. “The Union knows that he understands the rights of players under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and would never do anything to hurt or undermine active players in support of those rights.”

            Follow Tom Pelissero on Twitter @TomPelissero.
            Found this interesting


            • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

              These are pretty funny featuring Peyton Manning and Lionel Richie


              • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset


                • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset


                  • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

                    There's a lot more in this article but these were the parts I found interesting


                    How Peyton Manning got his name

                    Archie Manning was in fifth grade. He breathed football, loved it to the core of his being and he didn't want to miss one game of the Drew High School football team.

                    But his dad, Buddy Manning, who worked long hours in the farm equipment business in Drew, Miss., just didn't have time to take his son to the away games.

                    Archie Manning had a savior. His name was Peyton.

                    Uncle Peyton, who lived on a nearby farm, would take time out of his life to haul his nephew to towns surrounding Drew, to sit under the magical and bright lights of Friday night football.

                    Uncle Peyton was a guy who carried bourbon around in a flask, taking nips throughout the day. He swore like a sailor.

                    But when he took Archie around, he did none of that. Single his entire life, Uncle Peyton said some of his very best times were the ones with Archie at those football games. He didn't want those nights to end so on Saturdays, Peyton could be found milling the streets of Drew buying Archie ice cream at the five-and-dime store. Sometimes, Archie would go to his uncle's farm and chop cotton with Peyton, who gave him $3 a day for his hard work.

                    "The two grew close over the years. And there was just something about that name — Peyton — that was melodic and appealed to Archie's ear."

                    And that is the story of how legendary NFL star Peyton Manning got his name, after a bourbon-toting, foul-mouthed but caring uncle. It's one of a myriad of tales in the book"The Mannings: The Fall and Rise of a Football Family" by longtime Sports Illustrated writer Lars Anderson.

                    The book, which will be released Aug. 23, is not some risque, tell-all tome of the Manning dynasty. It's not a football-heavy playbook, either. It's a book about a family, a love of sports and the ups and downs they faced. The Mannings declined to "actively participate" in the writing of the book, Anderson says in the acknowledgments. But Archie Manning did help Anderson fact-check portions of the book.

                    Of the 305 pages, at least 200 focus solely on Archie, his childhood, the suicide of his father and the rise of an Ole Miss hero who could never become a superstar with the New Orleans Saints. The rest of the book is filled with stories of his three sons, Peyton, Eli and Cooper, who was forced to quit playing sports after he was diagnosed with a rare spinal condition at 18.

                    While much in the book about Peyton Manning isn't new, there are some stories that only die-hard Peyton fans may have heard.

                    Like his first football? It wasn't pigskin. As a tiny guy, Peyton and brother Cooper would rummage through the Saints locker room while their dad was at practice, looking for used athletic tape. They would take the sticky roll and crumple it into a ball, then run onto the field and throw. Here are some other Peyton Manning tidbits revealed in the book.

                    That second Super Bowl almost didn't happen

                    When Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning's replacement as Colts quarterback, soundly beat Manning in the AFC playoffs in January 2015, Manning almost retired. He had lost 24-13, throwing for 111 yards, compared to Luck's 265. Manning went home to New Orleans to talk to Archie and Olivia, his mom, about retiring. He weighed his options. Of course, he decided not to retire. That retirement wouldn't come until a year later, after he won his second Super Bowl against the Carolina Panthers. Late that night, hours after the 200th and final victory of his NFL career, after the reporters had finally finished with the questions, Manning met up with his family.

                    "Peyton didn't say it at this moment, but here, in the warm embrace of his family, the end had finally arrived."

                    And then there was one: Football

                    Football was his love, but Manning was also a really good basketball and baseball player. He had been a stellar pitcher, but after his sophomore year at Isadore Newman School, he gave up pitching. He wanted to save his arm for football.

                    However, during a summer game, his pitching staff depleted, the manager of the team, Billy Fitzgerald, told Manning he needed him to pitch. Manning wouldn't do it. Fitzgerald forced him. Furious, Manning threw his first pitch 10 feet over the batter's head, hitting the top of the backstop fence. On the next pitch, just to be sure Fitzgerald knew where he stood, Manning hit the batter square in his back. Fitzgerald never asked Manning to pitch again.

                    When Manning's high school basketball season rolled around, there was a problem. Fitzgerald was the coach. Manning, who had been the first one off the bench as a sophomore, was sure he would now be starting as a junior. But Fitzgerald told Manning that wasn't happening. The two argued for some time.

                    "Both agreed it would be in everyone's best interest if Peyton left the team, which he did, ending his basketball career."

                    The four quarterback sins

                    From the time he could toddle with a football in hand and make a throw, the four quarterback sins were etched into Manning's mind by his dad. These were mistakes Archie Manning believed led to QB failure, mistakes that a polished quarterback should never make. 1. Not being perfectly balanced when receiving snaps from center. 2. Stutter-stepping after receiving a snap. 3. Looking into the backfield when dropping back. 4. Patting the ball before throwing it, disrupting the timing with receivers.

                    "By the time Peyton was 17, coaches like (Jim) Mora graded Peyton's drops and throwing mechanics equal to those of elite college quarterbacks."

                    Peyton, the Notre Dame superstar

                    Manning could have easily been a member of the Irish. Among the colleges that recruited him the heaviest was Notre Dame. On a visit to South Bend, Cooper and Peyton Manning made believe they were playing for the Fighting Irish. Three times, they sprinted down the tunnel from the dressing room and ran out onto the field, imagining the crowd was erupting. They were "giddy."

                    But things got serious when Peyton Manning sat down with coach Lou Holtz. Manning took the meeting into his own hands. Question after question flew at Holtz, about the offense, the weight room, the quarterback coach, the wide receivers and running backs, the other recruits.

                    "(Holtz had) never been around a more inquisitive high school player than Peyton. The kid's thirsty mind made him even more appealing to Holtz, who promised Peyton immediate playing time."


                    • Re: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

                      The dude from South Park though? Kurt Russell or Don Cheadle would've been better options

                      At 8:00 PM ET, Worth the Wait: Gary Kubiak and the 2015 Denver Broncos airs, providing a behind-the-scenes look at some of the biggest moments and decisions that led to the Broncos' win in Super Bowl 50. Building off of the success of last year's Do Your Job: Bill Belichick and the 2014 Patriots, Worth the Wait features sitdown interviews with Broncos head coach Gary Kubiak, defensive coordinator Wade Phillips, Executive Vice President of Football Operations/General Manager John Elway and the entire Broncos coaching staff.

                      Narrated by Broncos fan and renowned actor Tim Allen, the hour-long show provides an inside look at the Broncos' journey to the franchise's third Super Bowl title. Featured on Worth the Wait is previously unseen wired sound and footage of Kubiak, quarterbacks/passing game coordinator Greg Knapp and quarterback Peyton Manning discussing Manning's removal during the Week 10 game against the Kansas City Chiefs and his return during the Week 17 game against the San Diego Chargers; Broncos coaches providing insight on such plays as the winning touchdown run in overtime against the New England Patriots in Week 12; and a look at one of the greatest defenses in NFL history as told by the coaching staff.

                      At 9:00 PM ET, America's Game: 2015 Broncos premieres, featuring in-depth interviews with Peyton Manning, Von Miller and DeMarcus Ware telling the story of the 2015 Super Bowl champion Denver Broncos.

                      Narrated by the co-creator of South Park, co-writer/co-director of the Tony Award-winning musical The Book of Mormon and Broncos fan, Trey Parker, America's Game delves deep into the Broncos' championship season. In the hour-long show, Manning, Miller and Ware recount the season in their own words. Featured on the show are wired sound of all three players and video footage of a private Manning throwing session while he was sidelined with an injury.