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

ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

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

  • #31
    Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

    Arm strength is probably the single most overrated attribute a QB can have. Think about it really, how many times does a QB REALLY air it out in a season? 10? Maybe 12? The throws that matter are the ones that keep the chains moving, threading the needle, placing the ball just over the receiver's shoulder, knowing when to dart it in there and when to loft it and let your receiver go get it. Arm strength is a nice weapon to have but by no means is it an indicator of guaranteed success at the NFL or any other level.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

      Yeah, but arm strength is about a lot more than just a deep route. I mean think about how much ground the ball is covering on just a simple ten yard out route. That's why everyone always gets on Kellen Moore's case.


      Comment


      • #33
        Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Yeah, but arm strength is about a lot more than just a deep route. I mean think about how much ground the ball is covering on just a simple ten yard out route. That's why everyone always gets on Kellen Moore's case.
        Thats exactly right but I question if thats a real concern of Luck. Tossing a hard ball to an average reciever can cause a drop just as easily as a soft miss placed throw.

        LUck has good TE's and very average wr's and I wonder if he's just taking some pop off his throw to help his wr's.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

          For the record, I'm not personally suggesting that Luck does not have a good arm.


          Comment


          • #35
            Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

            Here is a video of him falling down and throwing it 50 yards...

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMz9n...eature=related

            and how could you not like a Qb who can cause a fumble???

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5STc2_bM7k
            Last edited by Gamble1; 11-07-2011, 01:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

              I would think that arm strength means more than just flinging it 90 yrds. How about still being able to make the crisp accurate pass late in the 4th quarter of the 9th game of a tough season.
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

                Arm strength isn't about how far you can throw it. It's about the trajectory of your passes and the time the ball is in the air.

                The more velocity you throw with, the less air you put under the ball, which means the ball takes a more direct path to it's intended target.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

                  Two items worth posting from Peter King's MMQB from today.

                  Speaking of Andrew Luck ... I'm going to be writing about my conversation with Mike Mayock at the top of Tuesday's column -- he's going to start his NFL Network season as the color man alongside Brad Nessler Thursday in San Diego -- but I wanted to pass along one story he told me about Luck before then. Two summers ago, Mayock, who works at the Manning Passing Academy in Louisiana for a week every summer, told me he was standing next to Peyton Manning, watching a relatively unfamous Andrew Luck throw at the camp. "He's one of 25 college kids in shorts, just throwing,'' Mayock said. "Watching his throw, it still looked like he was warming up, and he threw a deep comeback.'' Mayock watched the throw and wondered if he was still warming up, or was that how Luck actually threw the ball? And Manning said, "But it gets there.'' And that's the thing with Luck. Mayock echoed Phil Simms, saying he doesn't have a howitzer, but the ball gets where it needs to go, and it gets there on time. More with Mayock tomorrow.
                  Living History: The Ryan Leaf story

                  I interviewed Ryan Leaf for my podcast the other day (iTunes or SI.com), and it brought back lots of memories about the 1998 draft, when Peyton Manning was the first pick, by Indianapolis, and Leaf the second, by San Diego. And you know the rest. Manning's had a Hall of Fame career, and Leaf was a major bust in five seasons with San Diego, Tampa Bay and Dallas.

                  I got this reaction from a few of you about the Leaf Podcast: Who cares? He's irrelevant.

                  Not really. It's one of the most fascinating stories in recent football history, and with the fervor over the potential star-studded 2012 quarterback draft class, I thought I would take you back to the month before the 1998 draft. That May, I took a VHS tape of 30 plays from Manning's 1997 season with Tennessee and 30 plays from Leaf's last season with Washington State. I sat down with six men, independent of each other, and showed them the 60 plays, and asked each who they would pick.

                  The six: brilliant offensive innovator Sid Gillman (since deceased), coach Mike Shanahan, analyst and former quarterback Phil Simms, then-Tampa Bay personnel czar Jerry Angelo, former 49er coach Bill Walsh and UCLA coach Bob Toledo, who had faced both quarterbacks in their college careers.

                  Now people look back and wonder, How could the Colts have had a second thought about who to pick? It had to be Manning, all the way. In spring 1998, the new ESPN The Magazine had a big story about which quarterback would turn out better in the NFL and said about Leaf: "He possesses an 'I don't give a crap' attitude that has proven essential to Super Bowl quarterbacks from Stabler to McMahon to Favre. Come 2018, Ryan Leaf, not Manning, will be strutting up to a podium in Canton.' '' It's easy to shake your head at that now, but there was a real debate.

                  Points from my SI story the week before the 1998 draft that I find interesting today:

                  * Sid Gillman, 86, watching tape of Manning throwing a look-one-way-throw-the-other screen against Mississippi: "Now this is a pro quarterback. Is that a beautiful throw, or is that a beautiful throw? I'd draft this kid in a second."

                  * Walsh said he wouldn't take either player with the first pick, though he favored Manning ... and said he had a better arm than Johnny Unitas. "I don't see Favre or Elway. I see those guys on the next level. But Manning seems to be more pro-ready than Leaf ... I'd pick another top player, and then I'd take [Michigan quarterback] Brian Griese in the second round. I think he could have the tools to be special."

                  * Simms was incredulous when the question about Manning's questionable arm strength was posed. "His arm's plenty good. You know how many times Drew Bledsoe really aired it out last year? I mean, 50, 60 yards in the air? Five. Ten, maybe. In the NFL, you make your living throwing the intermediate pass, and look at how many good intermediate throws we're seeing Peyton make."

                  * The same red off-the-field flags the Colts saw about Leaf, Angelo saw as Leaf's weight ballooned to 261 at the NFL Scouting Combine. "I was at the combine for the weigh-in," said Angelo, "and it really surprised me. Here's what could be the biggest day of your life, the day you're going to expose yourself to your future employers for the first time, and you show up out of shape and overweight. To me, that's a signal. The quarterback has to be the CEO of your team. You have to trust him. I'd have some hard questions if that happened and we were going to pick him."

                  * Gillman on Leaf's pass drop and release: "He's way too slow. This is the age of the blitzer in the NFL. He'd better get coached out of that in a hurry."

                  * Angelo on Manning, sounding eerily prescient: "He'll handle the inferno of going to a 3-13 team. He's a sure player."

                  Interesting note from Leaf on the podcast: He regularly texts Manning, and he says Manning has been a big supporter of his through some of his worst times. Leaf had a golf-ball-sized tumor removed from the base of his brain in May, and later this month he'll begin six weeks of radiation to neutralize what couldn't be surgically removed. The tumor was benign.
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    He has meant more to sports in Indianapolis than any one person ever has. I don't say that as hyperbole either. Man, I really hope we see him in a Colts uniform again. I hope for his sake he plays again. I'd love to see him tutor Luck for one year and then retire into the sunset as one of the greatest to ever play the game. That's the best case scenario we can hope for. He deserves a farewell like Reggie got.
                    He will certainly get a huge farewell whenever that happens. As a city and state, we have been fortunate to have him so many years as QB.
                    Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: ESPN: Manning would leave Colts "Peacefully" if they drafted Andrew Luck

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      BTW, sort of off topic, but anyone notice the strange trend on ESPN this weekend of a few people questioning Luck's arm strength? I thought it was a little odd.
                      Isn't that what they said of a QB coming out of Tennessee in 98?
                      "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

                      Working...
                      X