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

"There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

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

  • "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

    That's an interesting statement from Bob Kravitz....

    Besides that info or observation, and maybe in the context of it, Kravitz asks the question that might be flying under the radar a little too much:
    Why would Manning want to come back to the Colts after having the chance to see what a mess of a team that was constructed for his final years. We shouldn't be in a position to take Luck because this team never should've been this bad in the first place. Not with any kind of common sense that should've told the FO that the team needs to be in win now mode for the closing years of the Manning era.

    That the team should be needing to make a choice between Manning, who at best is probably down to 2...3...4 good years left (IF the injury issue subsides) versus drafting most everyone's dream QB and supposedly securing the position for the next 10+ years might sound good.... But it never should've come to this. The team never should've been this bad for this option to have fallen on their plate. They should've been loading up for the SB in Indy and this 'last' Manning contract to put it all on the line. We should be lamenting the fact the team finally had a top line defense to complement Manning and the offense and what a shame it is Manning is unable to play. We should be discussing the team's coaching and ability to stay competitive even without Manning. We should be talking about how this will pay dividends for the team if and when Manning returns.

    Instead, we're wondering if we can win a game...... and talking about the 'good fortune' of locking in on the #1 pick and what an asset that would be.

    But that misses the bigger issue. The Colts shouldn't be in this position in the first place. It's not good luck... It's mismanagement, complacency, and arrogance all rolled into one.


    Everybody wonders what the Indianapolis Colts are going to do with quarterback Peyton Manning when the time comes in March to make a decision on his $28 million option bonus.

    Nobody has asked this question:

    Would Manning even want to come back?

    (Note to self: Next time we have access to Manning, ask that question, even with the knowledge he's not going to answer it.)

    Seriously, if you're Manning and you have just a few years left to make another Super Bowl run, do you want any part of an organization that might go 0-16 this year? Do you want any part of a team whose owner (Jim Irsay) who has become a reckless Tweeter, whose front office (the Polians) continues to share information you don't want divulged and a coach (Jim Caldwell) who has no power or independence?

    At the age of 35 (36 in March), do you really believe this team is within a year or two of being a Super Bowl contender? With that defense? With these special teams? With this coaching staff?

    Manning embraces history, and I'm sure he wants to be like Dan Marino and John Elway and finish his career where he started. He doesn't want it to finish the way it ended for Brett Favre, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, all wearing somebody else's uniforms in their final years.

    But he wants to win.

    And he wants to be surrounded by people who will help him win.

    There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office, and Manning is growing increasingly tired of addressing issues that have leaked out courtesy of Irsay and one of the Polians.

    During Manning's talk Friday with the media, I asked him about vice chairman Bill Polian's recent radio-show assertion that he has spoken with Manning about drafting a quarterback. On his show, Polian said, "Peyton and I have spoken about that, and he's OK with that."

    Manning responded, "First, I want to say any conversations that Bill and I have are alone between he and I. I will say he and I have not had a conversation about the 2012 draft.

    "Bill keeps a lot of players informed on different things, but I've never known who we were going to draft in years past. It's been insinuated that he checks with me. I'm not in personnel. I don't do personnel . . ."

    I followed up, "So are you saying Bill wasn't being truthful?"

    Manning stammered.

    "Maybe a couple of years ago, he would say, 'Eventually, we're going to draft your replacement.' "

    So that conversation never happened?

    "No, no, I don't get into personnel; I don't," Manning said. "I don't know what was said on the radio show, but that's not the kind of conversation that would happen between him and I."

    Polian actually addressed the subject Sept. 12, telling radio listeners, "We look at every position, but Peyton and I did talk when we did this last contract (in August) about the fact that the time is approaching when it's time to take a look at quarterbacks and to evaluate them. We did that last year and there were a couple of quarterbacks we liked and they didn't fall to us in the draft process but had they, I'm sure we would have made a choice there . . ."

    Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether they talked about it or not. I would actually hope they would have talked about it. We're talking about the future of the franchise, right?

    The point being, Manning is tiring of addressing these sorts of things, is unhappy his private conversations have gone public and especially dislikes the insinuation that he's pulling strings. Manning always has been very proprietary about his image and the message that gets conveyed. The front office has done him no favors through these trying times.

    Forget, for one second, the questions about whether the franchise wants him back. If you're No. 18, do you want to come back to this dysfunctional mess?

    Even in a league where teams can rebuild in a hurry -- and the Colts will have the luxury of owning the top pick in every round of the draft -- it's hard to imagine them pulling this defense together quickly enough to make a Super Bowl run. That doesn't even begin to address the continuing issues along the offensive line and in special teams.

    If the Polians are still running the show, don't expect there to be much movement in the way of free agents, especially if they spend a lot to keep wide receiver Reggie Wayne and other veterans.

    Just as the Colts have to make some serious calculations, so does Manning.

    Maybe, just maybe, he will decide he would rather go to Washington, where team owner Dan Snyder will back up a Wells Fargo truck to his house, or to Tennessee, or maybe to New York to play for the Jets.

    Maybe Manning will take this decision completely out of the Colts' hands, telling them, "Don't give me the $28 million. Let me go somewhere else. Or maybe I'll just stay home with my twins."

    It's not beyond the realm of comprehension.
    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...-Manning-stay-
    Last edited by Bball; 12-07-2011, 02:24 AM.
    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, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

    Exactly why Polian's job should be on the line. He is just flat out over-rated.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

      The more I have pondered this situation the more I keep leaning toward drafting Luck and then trading him to a team willing to give us a ton of picks and 1-2 defensive impact players. Someone may be desperate for a starting caliber quarterback to do a Ditka and give us a ton that we could use right away to right the ship on defense and get an impact RB in the draft that we need that can run over people and also blow by defenders. We have a lot of guys on IR too so getting draft picks would make us deep in talent again so if someone goes down the next guy can step up and fill the spot without a rough transition. I think we have talent on defense but right now with all of the devestating injuries on that side of the ball this year we would be in a little better psoition if half of the guys could have been healthy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

        I read that article the other day and while I think the "schism" is straight out of the Favre/Childress saga a lot of what Kravitz said I agreed with.

        If you were Manning after witnessing this team and franchise fall apart all around you to the point where even places like Fort Wayne don't want to cover your games when they had before even during the bad years. Why would you want to come back here if you're healthy?

        Coaching sucks, drafting has been bad.. the defense couldn't stop a runny nose... list goes on.

        Sure there's the $$$ but he could get that anywhere if he wants rings he's not going to get anymore here. Its sad to admit but its true barring major changes.

        Then add insult to injury(pardon the pun) the Colts are already gushing over possibly drafting the guy that would replace you rather than thinking of improving the actual team.

        You might as well not be here if that's how its going to be.

        If anything I can't believe only Kravitz is the only media person to be critical of the Colts FO and coaching because the national media hasn't really done much compared to the movements of firing Tom Coughlin bigger market I guess.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

          This is a tough situation and the only option the Colts really have is to say goodbye to Manning. Peyton needs to understand it wouldn't matter if he was Montana, Elway, Marino or Johnny U. The Colts have a stadium to fill the next 15 years and Luck will definitely help.
          Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-07-2011, 10:53 PM.
          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


          • #6
            Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            I read that article the other day and while I think the "schism" is straight out of the Favre/Childress saga a lot of what Kravitz said I agreed with.

            If you were Manning after witnessing this team and franchise fall apart all around you to the point where even places like Fort Wayne don't want to cover your games when they had before even during the bad years. Why would you want to come back here if you're healthy?

            Coaching sucks, drafting has been bad.. the defense couldn't stop a runny nose... list goes on.

            Sure there's the $$$ but he could get that anywhere if he wants rings he's not going to get anymore here. Its sad to admit but its true barring major changes.

            Then add insult to injury(pardon the pun) the Colts are already gushing over possibly drafting the guy that would replace you rather than thinking of improving the actual team.

            You might as well not be here if that's how its going to be.

            If anything I can't believe only Kravitz is the only media person to be critical of the Colts FO and coaching because the national media hasn't really done much compared to the movements of firing Tom Coughlin bigger market I guess.
            They were piling on the Colts front office and coach on that ESPN show with Skip Bayless the other day. Pretty much saying they had failed at building a real team. Maybe the Colts should be happy that Tebow mania and the Packers are taking the heat off the team. Then again, maybe not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

              Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
              They were piling on the Colts front office and coach on that ESPN show with Skip Bayless the other day. Pretty much saying they had failed at building a real team. Maybe the Colts should be happy that Tebow mania and the Packers are taking the heat off the team. Then again, maybe not.
              I'm sure the Colts organization is happy after all this collapse is in the back pages(well until the draft or latest Manning update) I mean these players talked about how this wasn't a one man show and well you know the rest.

              The national media doesn't really care about the Colts they care about Manning who just happens to play for this team.

              Its no more apparent than it is this season.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "There is a growing schism between Manning and the front office"

                I sure hope Manning stays. I like Luck but I think his value to other teams would net us more value via a trade for players and draft picks. If we could move back a spot or two and still get a highly talented guy that would fill a hole immediately and then say several more high draft picks where we get real talent for other positions and maybe 1-2 impact players that are playing at a high level I would think we would ponder that option. For example we get to move back 2 spots and land a true impact player on Peyton's side of the ball like Blackmon from OK St. and get 2 2nd rounders and two third rounders we could possibly end up with 5 impact players that would play right away I think it would be too hard to pass up. We could possibly pick the future QB for our franchise in for example Matt Barkley from USC who I think will be a good QB. Next year could be widely different if we get such a talented rookie class to go with our IR players coming back healthy, we would be a totally different team. Peyton may get pretty excited at the thought of getting another weapon and the relief that we did not draft a QB that would feel that they have to play right away.

                Comment

                Working...
                X