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

Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

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

  • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I understand that, but Bball is saying he shouldn't play for ANY reason.

    I don't think you trot him out and let him play every snap, hoping to win football games, and as a result lose your leverage with the #1 pick.

    But if Peyton is healthy enough to play, and there's not a whole lot of risk of injury, then he needs to get back on the field and see if he's going to be a viable option for the next few years, or if the Colts need to go in a different direction.

    Whether or not Peyton can play, not just next season, but for a few more seasons completely changes the discussion.

    It also helps leverage if you decide to take Luck, and then move Peyton.


    You still have to know the health of Peyton, and if he's going to play again, at some point in time you have to get him back on the field. Waiting until after March to determine whether or not he can play, puts you in a bind.

    If you find out he can play, before March, it makes the decision to pick up his option a lot easier decision.

    There's a fine line you have to walk, and saying there's no reason whatsoever Peyton should play, isn't walking that line. It's drawing the line in the sand and making a pretty clear statement about which side your on, regardless of all the other factors that should be brought into the equation.

    EDIT: It should be a fluid discussion that changes depending on the information at hand.

    I'll agree with that. If by chance he could somehow play a bit at the end of the year and if it were low risk that he'd get hurt again, it would be worth putting him out there to see if he can still make NFL caliber throws. He would obviously be very very rusty after not playing for a year (he was rusty after missing training camp and pre-season in 08), but seeing him in action would at least help answer some big questions.

    Aren't we supposed to get another update on Dec 1? That will probably all but answer the question of whether there is even a chance he could play this season.

    Comment


    • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

      I haven't yet seen anyone claim to have a PhD in this thread. Moreover, I haven't yet seen anyone claim they know more than the doctors. What I have seen (and participated in) is opinions being given based on the information that we do know and filling in the blanks using common sense.

      Comment


      • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Where did some of you guys get your Ph.D?

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        I haven't yet seen anyone claim to have a PhD in this thread. Moreover, I haven't yet seen anyone claim they know more than the doctors. What I have seen (and participated in) is opinions being given based on the information that we do know and filling in the blanks using common sense.
        Well first of all very few medical doctors have PhD's and secondly their are different opinions on when its safe to come back from a fusion. Peytons doctor feels that its ok for him to play with his neck not completely fused that much is known given that (MD's) agree that the neck won't "completely" fuse for an entire year which is probably an average.

        His nerve regeneration is the limiting factor and only his doctor and him will know if thats healing in time for him to play. His brother who is a reliable source feels that their could be a chance which is good news IMO.

        Edit: I would think a person in the medical field would know the difference and I wouldn't want a PhD given me medical advice unless they are physical therapist or have a MD attachd to that PhD.
        Last edited by Gamble1; 11-21-2011, 03:29 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

          http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/71...ay-11-feasible
          A few hours earlier, Manning made his second impromptu locker room appearance of the season, telling reporters that he's spending every day in rehab and that he hopes to practice with his teammates in December and play in a game later this season.
          But he hasn't been cleared for football activity by the doctors. Irsay said there was less than a 50 percent chance Manning would appear in a game this season.
          "If" medically cleared I think Peyton has a chance of playing this year. IS that stupid? Maybe but Irsay and Manning think their is a chance so I will too.

          Comment


          • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

            It would also take a long time to get over picking Manning over Luck only for Peyton to get hurt again or only play 1-2 more years while Luck goes on to have a fantastic 15 career somewhere else when he could have had it here. How would it feel watching Luck have a tremendous career while our franchise was in the gutter for a while?

            The above comment is why you take Luck and keep him. If that means Peyton is released
            then you release him. It may be doing him a favor as the Colts are depleted talent wise.
            With Luck next year they will struggle and pick up some more high draft picks to finally get the ball rolling. Trading Peyton is not going to happen due to the cost involved.
            If Luck is willing to wait then you keep Manning if he is healthy. If he gets hurt again you have a QB waiting to take over. Luck should be here next year regardless of Mannings status.
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Trading the pick gives the Colts a lot bigger head start in fixing the rest of the problems on the roster. Picking Luck does nothing to fix those problems. You're merely switching out one QB for another.


              If the Colts would draft Luck, and then start rebuilding the rest of their roster, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. However, I don't think they would/will. I think they will simply plug in Luck for Manning and continue the path that they've been on.


              Until I see them try to change course, I have no reason to think they will change course.
              Drafting Luck goes a long way to fixing the Colts. QB is the foundation for success in the NFL. The bigger issue is whether the Polians need to go. I believe Luck should be the pick period regardless of all other factors. Look how good Peyton has made Polian look.
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                The Colts have 6 weeks left. Peyton has not been cleared to practice to date.
                There is almost NO WAY he will play this year. He would need a month of training and practice to be even close to ready to play. It is almost as certain as you can get that he will not play. Why risk it, even if cleared? I would be VERY afraid if something happened to him. If I was leading the organization with even the little info we have now he would be done playing until next fall. He can practice, that would be it.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                  By the last couple games of the season we could have such a lead on last place that Peyton wouldn't have to worry about screwing up our draft spot.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    Well first of all very few medical doctors have PhD's and secondly their are different opinions on when its safe to come back from a fusion. Peytons doctor feels that its ok for him to play with his neck not completely fused that much is known given that (MD's) agree that the neck won't "completely" fuse for an entire year which is probably an average.

                    His nerve regeneration is the limiting factor and only his doctor and him will know if thats healing in time for him to play. His brother who is a reliable source feels that their could be a chance which is good news IMO.

                    Edit: I would think a person in the medical field would know the difference and I wouldn't want a PhD given me medical advice unless they are physical therapist or have a MD attachd to that PhD.
                    How many doctors are we talking about? Is this the consensus of opinion of the medical profession? Until his doctors clear him to play we are hearing spin. All this is moot because while his fusion will eventually take the big problem as you say is whether the nerves come back and no one knows that answer. That answer will come during his rehab and they likely will not push that rehab. Nerves are not muscle. You can't just go into the gym and have nerve regeneration. If the nerves are gone his career is over. Getting the nerves to come back can be quick or even not at all.

                    And who knows how much Peyton has left without this injury? Two years, more, less? With this offensive line he could get old really fast.

                    And you don't want a Ph.D. giving medical advice? Who do you think teaches doctors in the med schools? You think a neuroanatomist Ph.D. knows less than a doctor? Go to IU and take a look at the credentials of the med school teaching faculty.
                    Last edited by speakout4; 11-21-2011, 08:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Ha! If Manning wound up with the Titans, then their quest to take our leftovers this last decade will finally be complete!
                      lol I always compared what the titans do to us, to what the chiefs did to the niners back in the early 90's.

                      My own opinion on this is you have to make the decision that's best for the team and I believe that is to take Andrew Luck regardless of how healthy Manning comes back. However, I think it's only fair though to let Peyton control what he wants to do whether it be retire or let Irsay know what team he wants to go to that gives him the best chance at winning more titles. The guy has done so much for this franchise he deserves to be able to control his destiny and try to get the most out of his remaining years.

                      I certainly would not feel any amount of disrespect if his decision would be to play elsewhere. It's not like Manning is spitting in our face on a Lebron James level ego trip, it's just doing what's best for both parties involved.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        How many doctors are we talking about? Is this the consensus of opinion of the medical profession? Until his doctors clear him to play we are hearing spin. All this is moot because while his fusion will eventually take the big problem as you say is whether the nerves come back and no one knows that answer. That answer will come during his rehab and they likely will not push that rehab. Nerves are not muscle. You can't just go into the gym and have nerve regeneration. If the nerves are gone his career is over. Getting the nerves to come back can be quick or even not at all.

                        And who knows how much Peyton has left without this injury? Two years, more, less? With this offensive line he could get old really fast.

                        And you don't want a Ph.D. giving medical advice? Who do you think teaches doctors in the med schools? You think a neuroanatomist Ph.D. knows less than a doctor? Go to IU and take a look at the credentials of the med school teaching faculty.
                        Ok I will walk across the street and take a look or better yet I'll just ask a colleague with a MD PhD. I work with plenty of MD's and PhD's there is a big difference between teaching a practicing and they don't confuse the two unlike some on here. How many PhD's can see patients like Peyton legally and give them their medical advice? Point is I thought it was a silly comment in the first place and as you pointed out its all spin right now anyway.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 11-22-2011, 02:29 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          I haven't yet seen anyone claim to have a PhD in this thread. Moreover, I haven't yet seen anyone claim they know more than the doctors. What I have seen (and participated in) is opinions being given based on the information that we do know and filling in the blanks using common sense.
                          Saying Peyton shouldn't play, no matter what this season, is saying you know more than the doctors, if/when they clear him.

                          Maybe my post wasn't directed at you, but other people......
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                            Originally posted by owl View Post
                            Drafting Luck goes a long way to fixing the Colts. QB is the foundation for success in the NFL. The bigger issue is whether the Polians need to go. I believe Luck should be the pick period regardless of all other factors. Look how good Peyton has made Polian look.
                            Uh, how? Trading out one QB for another QB does nothing to address the real problems of the Colts, which is the horrible defense and their Oline.

                            Until those two things get fixed, you can have the best QB ever to play in the NFL and still underachieve.







                            Which describes the Colts past decade.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                              Originally posted by owl View Post
                              It would also take a long time to get over picking Manning over Luck only for Peyton to get hurt again or only play 1-2 more years while Luck goes on to have a fantastic 15 career somewhere else when he could have had it here. How would it feel watching Luck have a tremendous career while our franchise was in the gutter for a while?

                              The above comment is why you take Luck and keep him. If that means Peyton is released
                              then you release him. It may be doing him a favor as the Colts are depleted talent wise.
                              With Luck next year they will struggle and pick up some more high draft picks to finally get the ball rolling. Trading Peyton is not going to happen due to the cost involved.
                              If Luck is willing to wait then you keep Manning if he is healthy. If he gets hurt again you have a QB waiting to take over. Luck should be here next year regardless of Mannings status.

                              Have you watched Matt Barkley this year? Who ever ends up him is gonna have one hell of a QB.

                              There are other guys that can play in this draft. Luck isn't the only good player available.

                              If you can turn Luck into Matt Barkley, with 2 other first round draft picks along with multiple later round draft picks, that's pretty damn good.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Manning vs. Luck - What would you do?

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Ok I will walk across the street and take a look or better yet I'll just ask a colleague with a MD PhD. I work with plenty of MD's and PhD's there is a big difference between teaching a practicing and they don't confuse the two unlike some on here. How many PhD's can see patients like Peyton legally and give them their medical advice? Point is I thought it was a silly comment in the first place and as you pointed out its all spin right now anyway.
                                I'll be sure to comb through your posts and find Monday errors next time. Good to know you've never made a mistake.

                                The point of my post was to point out that using released medical information, especially from the Colts who keep pretty much everything in house, to formulate an ignorant opinion is just that. Ignorant.

                                Do you know more than his doctors? No.

                                Since you don't, quite frankly your opinion on whether or not he will be medically cleared to play is worth just about as much as the TP you use.

                                Until you have a chance to examine him, or until you display you have enough credentials to give an informed opinion, you really don't have anything to stand on.

                                You can read all the studies in the world on topic, it still doesn't make you an expert.

                                Let the doctors do their damn job before you start second guessing them.


                                I wonder if you guys correct your doctors when your getting examed too. I would love to listen to the doctor's reaction when you do it.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X