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

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

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

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

    We just interact with different people I guess. I've had very little contact with Colts fans who are so dismissive of Peyton's successes. The Indy media adores him.

    I just think you and Basketball Fan like him so much that you are super sensitive to any criticism.

    Luck isn't in the prime of his career yet. If he's struggling in his prime years, then there will be criticism.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-11-2016, 12:55 PM.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      We just interact with different people I guess. I've had very little contact with Colts fans who are so dismissive of Peyton's successes. The Indy media adores him.

      I just think you and Basketball Fan like him so much that you are super sensitive to any criticism.

      Luck isn't in the prime of his career left. If he's struggling in his prime years, then there will be criticism.
      There was criticism THIS year of Luck. And rightfully so. And there's been consistent criticism of his penchant for holding onto the ball too long and fumbling it. Although in that case it's been seen as a correctable error, and one nobody hopes he makes a habit of.
      Last edited by Bball; 03-11-2016, 01:02 PM.
      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: According to the Denver Post, Peyton Manning will ride off into the sunset

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        There was criticism THIS year of Luck. And rightfully so. And there's been consistent criticism of his penchant for holding onto the ball too long and fumbling it. Although in that case it's been seen as a correctable error, and one nobody hopes he doesn't make a habit of.
        Good point. Luck was criticized a ton on here and in the media for his poor play this season.

        I was referring more along the lines of if Luck struggles in the playoffs in the prime of his career after the team has a spectacular regular season, then there will be appropriate criticism.

        In the post of mine that Ace quoted a bit ago, I was responding to Basketball Fan's bewilderment as to why anyone would think that Brady is a better Super Bowl performer than Manning. She thinks it's all driven by a "narrative" instead of the fact that Brady objectively was just a superior player in the Super Bowl.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Luck isn't in the prime of his career yet. If he's struggling in his prime years, then there will be criticism.
          This goes against my argument, but I think Colt fans saw how long it took for Manning to "mature" as a player, so they tend to be a bit more lenient with Luck.

          Manning was the first legit SUPERSTAR QB the franchise had seen in Indy. He received a lot of criticism early on in his career simply due to being a bit of a novelty. Colt fans saw the monster games/numbers/success in the regular season, they couldn't understand why there wasn't consistently the same thing in the playoffs.

          Once Colt fans adjusted to the fact that it's rare for ANYONE to consistently put up those type of numbers in the playoffs, I think they tempered their expectations for Luck a bit.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            ............... Manning seems to have his failures define his legacy more than others.
            Could be because he has so damn many of them in important, high-profile, National TV games.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              This goes against my argument, but I think Colt fans saw how long it took for Manning to "mature" as a player, so they tend to be a bit more lenient with Luck.

              Manning was the first legit SUPERSTAR QB the franchise had seen in Indy. He received a lot of criticism early on in his career simply due to being a bit of a novelty. Colt fans saw the monster games/numbers/success in the regular season, they couldn't understand why there wasn't consistently the same thing in the playoffs.

              Once Colt fans adjusted to the fact that it's rare for ANYONE to consistently put up those type of numbers in the playoffs, I think they tempered their expectations for Luck a bit.
              Manning had some legitimately stacked teams around him for his first decade here. I mean you look at the team that won the Super Bowl - that was a legitimately stacked roster. Even if we had some poor defensive philosophies, we still had a lot of talent. Peyton started out with a young Marvin Harrison and Tarik Glenn. Then we added the likes of Edge, Saturday, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, etc. The offensive line was loaded. Pretty much everything about the offense through the 06 season was literally perfect.

              Now once Polian took a back seat and started letting his son Fredo make decisions after we won the Super Bowl, the quality of the moves went drastically downhill and Peyton had to carry some teams that weren't as good.

              With Luck, the franchise really hasn't done him too many favors personnel wise. TY Hilton was a good move. Most of the other moves by this regime on the offensive side of the ball have been pretty underwhelming. The talent doesn't even come within light years of what Manning was surrounded with.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-11-2016, 04:46 PM.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                There are very few Colt fans that would acknowledge that Russ Wilson may be better than Luck. How does that make sense lol? Because narratives are totally swung by personal bias.

                Manning seems to have his failures define his legacy more than others. Not only by the national media, but by "hometown" fans as well.
                Because Manning could have easily gone down as the GOAT if the playoffs had gone a bit better. Simple as that. BasketballFan always brings up quarterbacks like Favre and Brees and even Big Ben, but Manning is so far ahead of them that's it not even funny. Those quarterbacks aren't scrutinized like Manning because no one has them ranked anywhere near as high as him. Manning is scrutinized because he himself is a top 3-5ish all time quarterback is compared to the very very very best.

                I don't think Colts fans like admitting that Brady is better than Manning. Most Colts fans I know wanted to argue Manning's side for years until it got to a point where it was just hard to do. The Russell Wilson - Andrew Luck thing isn't very comparable because they've only played each other one time. Manning and Brady immediately started facing each other a lot once Brady was inserted as a starter since at first they were in the same division, then they started playing in playoff games against each other. Manning and Brady were attached early in their careers because they were always facing each other.

                Also, the Colts aren't anywhere near as loaded talent-wise as the Seahawks........not even remotely close. The Colts teams back in the mid 2000's were very close to the Pats talent wise, which is why they finally started to beat them once they got past the mental hurdle.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  This goes against my argument, but I think Colt fans saw how long it took for Manning to "mature" as a player, so they tend to be a bit more lenient with Luck.

                  Manning was the first legit SUPERSTAR QB the franchise had seen in Indy. He received a lot of criticism early on in his career simply due to being a bit of a novelty. Colt fans saw the monster games/numbers/success in the regular season, they couldn't understand why there wasn't consistently the same thing in the playoffs.

                  Once Colt fans adjusted to the fact that it's rare for ANYONE to consistently put up those type of numbers in the playoffs, I think they tempered their expectations for Luck a bit.
                  Which is rather funny considering the lofty expectations people had of him when he was drafted "the next Manning" was supposed to be better actually. I found that highly unrealistic no matter who it is.

                  I'll be curious as to how long that "pass" goes for Andrew Luck. Especially when you've seen Newton go to an SB, Wilson win and SB(and should've won another).

                  I think Andrew Luck is good but I see a lot of Favre in him I don't think the Colts FO sees that and build around that.

                  I'm sure lots of people think Brady is better that's fine I never agreed with it though it has nothing to do with him being a Pat or disliking him I just think Manning was always the better individual talent. But Brady has the better career.

                  Same with Wilt/Marino the better talent but Russell/Montana had the better career.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Manning had some legitimately stacked teams around him for his first decade here. I mean you look at the team that won the Super Bowl - that was a legitimately stacked roster. Even if we had some poor defensive philosophies, we still had a lot of talent. Peyton started out with a young Marvin Harrison and Tarik Glenn. Then we added the likes of Edge, Saturday, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, etc. The offensive line was loaded. Pretty much everything about the offense through the 06 season was literally perfect.

                    Now once Polian took a back seat and started letting his son Fredo make decisions after we won the Super Bowl, the quality of the moves went drastically downhill and Peyton had to carry some teams that weren't as good.

                    With Luck, the franchise really hasn't done him too many favors personnel wise. TY Hilton was a good move. Most of the other moves by this regime on the offensive side of the ball have been pretty underwhelming. The talent doesn't even come within light years of what Manning was surrounded with.
                    I'm of the idea that a lot of those teams were made to look better because of Manning's presence. Outside of Edge, Marvin and (not nearly to the same extent) Reggie were true offensive playmakers that had a sense of greatness. Guys like Stokley, Gonzales, Clark, etc were guys that benefitted greatly from playing with Manning. Defensively, we may have had talent, but they could never get stops late in the playoffs. I can count at least 3 playoff loses where we had the lead down the stretch and the defense allowed a score (Miami, SD, Ny)

                    I always thought we were a team built for the regular season, but not the playoffs. Yet Manning gets most of the blame for that (which is understandable given that he's one of the greats)

                    While Luck hasn't been blessed with the talent Manning may have had early, he's been basically gift wrapped playoff appearances by playing in the AFC south. Manning always played in one of the toughest divisions for much of his career (initially the AFC East and then the first incarnation of the AFC South)

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Could be because he has so damn many of them in important, high-profile, National TV games.
                      I couldn't find the record, but Manning has an immaculate record playing in prime time. In fact many of his best wins and statistical games have come in primetime. During his years as a Colt, you pretty much chalked up a W when they were playing in primetime. At least from what I remember

                      Most of his biggest losses have come during the first or third playoff game of the divisional playoffs. Not high profile games nor primetime games. Yet another fallacy.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        I couldn't find the record, but Manning has an immaculate record playing in prime time. In fact many of his best wins and statistical games have come in primetime. During his years as a Colt, you pretty much chalked up a W when they were playing in primetime. At least from what I remember

                        Most of his biggest losses have come during the first or third playoff game of the divisional playoffs. Not high profile games nor primetime games. Yet another fallacy.
                        I was specifically meaning in the playoffs. Sure would have helped to put that in - wouldn't it ?? My mistake.

                        But - there's no way his 9 one and dones in the playoffs can be overlooked. I would guess that the Colts were favored in at least 6 or 7 of those games. And he had some incredibly bad stats in a lot of those games. So fallacy - no.

                        Comment


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

                          how many of those 9 one and dones were in the divisional round though? To me that makes a world of a difference compared to the first round exit.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            how many of those 9 one and dones were in the divisional round though? To me that makes a world of a difference compared to the first round exit.
                            5 and it really doesn't change anything

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              I'm of the idea that a lot of those teams were made to look better because of Manning's presence. Outside of Edge, Marvin and (not nearly to the same extent) Reggie were true offensive playmakers that had a sense of greatness. Guys like Stokley, Gonzales, Clark, etc were guys that benefitted greatly from playing with Manning. Defensively, we may have had talent, but they could never get stops late in the playoffs. I can count at least 3 playoff loses where we had the lead down the stretch and the defense allowed a score (Miami, SD, Ny)
                              Outside of Marvin, Reggie, and Edge........two of the greatest WR's ever (who played alongside each other at their peak for a few years) and one of the better running backs in league history. Those three were one hell of an arsenal. Sure guys like Stokely and Clark benefited from the system (though Clark was a hell of a player in his own right). Not everyone can be HOF talent. To have WR's like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne at the same time for a few years......that's something that doesn't come around very often.

                              I agree that the defense failed to stopped teams in the playoffs when it mattered even in years where they were good, particularly the 2007 San Diego game, no doubt about that.

                              The offense was literally perfect for several years. Two HOF WR's. A beast TE in Clark. Tarik Glenn protecting the blindside for the first 9 years of Manning's career. The stability of Saturday for all of those years. The coaching of Howard Mudd on the line. Having Tom Moore. Having Edge.....then the Addai/Rhodes Super Bowl combo which was great that one year because of the line.

                              Manning is correctly viewed as having virtually a perfect offense around him.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                5 and it really doesn't change anything
                                Really? So if in 5 of those 9 seasons the Colts went 1-1 instead of 0-1, it wouldnt change anything?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X