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

ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

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

  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Originally posted by Really? View Post
    Really, I do not think that it matters much. Everyone in the NFL wants to start, that is a silly thing to say, but I will say that it will be kind of hard for Indy to pass on Luck with the uncertainty of Peyton Manning.

    If Luck decides to accept the Colts drafting him he will have to make the best out of his situation and sit behind Peyton and make the best out of his overall situation.

    Like I said the colts will come out good no matter what.


    Really? (pardon the pun) the Colts will come out good no matter what?

    We get two QB's but where's the rest of the team? Defense has holes, Offensive Line has holes...

    Manning and Luck may be professional enough to get along but Andrew Luck will bolt if he doesn't get to play after his rookie deal is up and Manning will resent that they got a QB rather than some help that's sorely needed on this team.

    (assuming this actually takes place of course)

    And a large part of Manning's development had to do with Moore and Mudd as coaches..

    Does Andrew Luck get that type of help as he learns this position?

    I don't believe it doesn't matter much.

    It matters a lot.

    We'll soon find out come April

    Leave a comment:


  • Shade
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Luck doesn't seem to me to be the kind of guy who would try to force his way to another team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Really?
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Really, I do not think that it matters much. Everyone in the NFL wants to start, that is a silly thing to say, but I will say that it will be kind of hard for Indy to pass on Luck with the uncertainty of Peyton Manning.

    If Luck decides to accept the Colts drafting him he will have to make the best out of his situation and sit behind Peyton and make the best out of his overall situation.

    Like I said the colts will come out good no matter what.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basketball Fan
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    Well, that certainly changes the dynamic on the idea that's Luck could sit behind Peyton a couple of years. Maybe Luck would but it sounds like the voices in Peyton's ear will be telling him he doesn't want to be starting on borrowed time. Now add the financial stuff into the mix....

    It never should've came to this.


    Yep but it has the irony is that Manning told Luck he should stay another year and now he might take his job. Archie isn't saying anything earth shattering he knows that Luck will want to start wherever he goes all #1s want that. Whether they get it is another story.

    Putting that aside I can't believe anyone thought this would work. And before someone brings up Favre/Rodgers Favre was healthy(Manning is not) and Rodgers wasn't the #1 draft pick( he should've been and Luck probably will be )

    When you're #1 and in today's NFL you start Manning did and Luck should be no different plus if he isn't getting the start he can go back to school or force his way to a team that will.

    However unlike the Packers who built a complete team the Colts have an elite QB on an average team(and we're not going to get into the coaching that's a whole other post)

    Even if they both wanted to be on the same team you have two QB's but we have so many holes on the team that need to be fixed defense, O-Line etc how can this team be competitive?

    Manning is wanting a SB run and how can you do that when most of the $$ is tied up to the QB but not much else?

    This also won't do any favors to Luck either.

    And with the FO we have who's to say either of them think this team is in their best interest?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Obviously they don't want to be teammates. Anyone who thought that Luck would be content with coming here and sitting behind Peyton for a few years was naive.

    Manning idolized Dan Marino, but he wouldn't have wanted to go to Miami and sit behind him for a few years. He was good enough to play immediately on several teams and wanted that opportunity.

    As to the whole "but learning behind Peyton would be very valuable to him" argument. Yeah, it would.....but it's still not as valuable as playing. Nothing is more valuable than getting actual in-game experience.

    If we are confident that Peyton will recover then I want to trade this pick for some big assets and make one last run with Peyton. We could get some mega assets for that number 1 pick if we knew how to use them. I don't want to trade valuable years of a top 5-10 all time QB for a guy who has never stepped foot on a field. I would never get over seeing Peyton carve it up with a different logo on his helmet.

    I really don't think we are that far off if Peyton comes back, especially if we wisely used the assets that we would get from trading the Luck pick. The New England game showed that we still have some very talented receivers if they just have a quarterback who can get them the ball If anything good has come out of this season, it's that Garcon has shown that he isn't just a product of Manning.

    It's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out.......
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-06-2011, 06:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pacersalltheway10
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    I don't know. But I still have a gut feeling that Luck and Peyton will be teammates until Peyton retires.

    Leave a comment:


  • Really?
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    We will not win out, but we should have a chance in the last 3 games, I think we really only have a shot in 2 of them if we played as good as we did last week. Houston's pass defense is brutal, their front 4 really cause QB's problems.

    With that being said, I say either trade the pick to obtain first in future drafts and use later picks grabbing 2 qb's, Possibly Russell Wilson, and Kellen Moore, have them compete for the backup position, and maybe find a adequate backup for Peyton Manning and future starter. If that does not workout use one of those future first to draft a QB when Peyton is done.

    I previously was on the thought pattern of only drafting Luck no matter what, but I think this QB class is fairly deep and the only good QB to come out of it, will not just be luck.

    P.S. What if we followed up Peyton with Tyler Bray, lol back to back Franchise QB's from Tennessee.

    Leave a comment:


  • indygeezer
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    If we win out it could be a moot point, I mean Minnie could end up with the pick, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • RWB
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Luck was interviewed last night on ESPN and once again affirmed he will be in this year's draft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Re: ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Well, that certainly changes the dynamic on the idea that's Luck could sit behind Peyton a couple of years. Maybe Luck would but it sounds like the voices in Peyton's ear will be telling him he doesn't want to be starting on borrowed time. Now add the financial stuff into the mix....

    It never should've came to this.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProFootballTalk: Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates

    Archie Manning doubts that Peyton and Andrew Luck want to be teammates | ProFootballTalk

    Originally posted by Mike Florio
    Peyton Manning has said that, by March, his future in Indianapolis will become apparent. As the Colts close in on the ability to take Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck with the first overall pick in the 2012 draft, Archie Manning has provided the first tangible evidence to suggest that a divorce is coming.

    Specifically, Archie doesn’t believe that Peyton and Luck will want to be teammates in Indianapolis.

    “I don’t think it’d necessarily be great for either one,” Archie Manning told FOX Sports Radio’s Zakk & Jack Show on Tuesday. “I think Andrew’s the type of mature player . . . he can walk right in. I mean, these other three or four guys that are playing this year, [if] they can walk in and contribute, Andrew can, too. . . .

    “We know Andrew well. He comes down to our camp every year. I used to play with his dad [Oliver]. . . . I’m in New York, I heard from him last night. Peyton’s also tried to help Andrew and kind of be a friend. I doubt if either one want to play on the same team.”

    It wasn’t an accident or a coincidence. It was a clear sign that, if the Colts plan to take Luck, Peyton will be looking for a path out of town. And for good reason. With the first overall pick worth more than ever this year, Peyton surely would prefer that the Colts trade the rights to Luck for players and/or draft picks who could help Peyton win more Super Bowls.

    Of course, it’s also possible that Archie has advised Oliver on the procedure for making a power play, which Archie did seven years ago when Eli Manning forced his way out of San Diego. And so, if Andrew Luck makes it clear that he doesn’t want to play for the Colts, the Colts could keep Peyton.

    Either way, this all needs to happen before early March, since the Colts owe Peyton another $28 million at that point. If it doesn’t, there’s a chance that the Colts end up not with both players, but with neither.
Working...
X