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

Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

    Chris Mortenson also talked about this today on the Dan Patrick Show...

    Jerry bad idea

    April 23, 2006

    BY MIKE MULLIGAN Staff Reporter


    Proceed with caution. That's the advice to Bears general manager Jerry Angelo now that word is out that the team is considering a trade of running back Thomas Jones to the Indianapolis Colts. Why the Bears would trade a player who accounted for 36 percent of their offense -- a ratio second only to Tiki Barber in the entire NFL last year -- is something of a mystery. It's even more confusing when you consider the Colts are thought to be offering only a late third-round pick and a second-day selection....
    Why the Bears would trade a player whom the coaching staff clearly values and wants back is even more puzzling. How badly does coach Lovie Smith want to keep his top rusher? When asked point blank if Jones was attending the team's offseason workout program, Smith carefully worded a misleading response.

    ''He's been here,'' Smith said. ''He reported to the offseason program like most of our guys.''

    Technically, that's true. Jones has been to Halas Hall. He did report to the program on time and met with coaches. What Smith omitted is that Jones has since pulled out of the program and no longer attends the ''voluntary'' workouts, according to his new agent, Drew Rosenhaus.

    Jones wants to be traded, according to Rosenhaus, who is slowly, but surely, gaining a big-time presence in the Bears' locker room. You remember Rosenhaus. He had Terrell Owens creasing himself with laughter during the infamous ''Next question'' news conference in Philadelphia last year. That's the same Rosenhaus who represents linebacker Lance Briggs, whose contract the Bears were hoping to extend last week before talks broke down. Rosenhaus also represents defensive end Adewale Ogunleye, defensive tackle Tommie Harris and special-teams ace Brendan Ayanbadejo.

    If the Bears acquiesce to one player's trade demand, then who is next to dictate his departure? What happens if Briggs doesn't get the offer he wants and refuses to report to training camp, a tactic Rosenhaus has threatened with previous clients

    Rosenhaus, who has represented Jones for less than a week, insists he's not the one fueling the trade talk.

    ''This is something that has been ongoing for a much longer period of time than when I was involved,'' Rosenhaus said. ''These are discussions that have been taking place. It's not like it just started when I just became Thomas' agent.''

    If Rosenhaus is right, then you have to suspect that Jones became interested in being traded when he found out a deal was in the works.

    ''The guy is a consummate pro,'' was how offensive coordinator Ron Turner described him. It's an apt description. Jones, who will turn 28 in August, is a reclusive type who spends all his waking moments working out and breaking down tape. He is excellent in the locker room and a good teammate. He's reliable, focused and always puts the team first.

    The only way a player like that suddenly becomes disgruntled is if he realizes he's losing his job for no reason. That is not the case, according to Smith.

    ''When you have a fourth pick in the draft, eventually you have to let them have a chance to prove why you drafted them,'' Smith conceded. ''But at the running back position, there are a lot of carries, a lot of pounding that goes on.

    ''You just look at what Kansas City was able to do when they kept two running backs together, a Pro Bowler and a first-rounder. They kept them together for quite a few years, and that worked itself out. That is always the case. Our goal is to have good players at whatever the number is that we keep at a position. We don't want there to be a big difference between the two. If something happens, an injury, there is not a dropoff.''

    The Chiefs used a first-round pick on Larry Johnson (No. 27) in 2003 because they were worried that Priest Holmes would be unable to return from a hip injury. Holmes regained his form, and Johnson basically sat and watched for 2-1/2 years, complaining and whining bitterly all the while. When Holmes went down last year, the Chiefs plugged in Johnson and found not only a replacement, but a better player.

    The Bears' offense had next to nothing going for it last year, outside of Jones and the running game. The Bears ranked 29th in the 32-team NFL on offense and were tied with the Houston Texans for 26th in scoring with 16.2 points per game. Only the San Francisco 49ers converted fewer third downs than the Bears' 62, and only the 49ers and Texans averaged fewer yards per play than the Bears' 4.4.

    Jones was a godsend, finishing ninth in the NFL with 1,335 rushing yards and nine touchdowns on 314 carries and another 143 yards on 26 catches. He's also one of the top blocking running backs in the league.

    ''It all starts with the running game, and we feel great about our depth there,'' said Turner, who insisted no one has talked to him about the possibility of losing Jones, even though there was an Internet report of a potential trade more than a week ago.

    If the running game was the strength of the team last year, then the projected strength this season is continuity on both the roster and coaching staff. The Bears are in the unique position of returning all their starters from last season, when they won the NFC North with an 11-5 record. They will field the same offense for the the first time in four years.

    ''There is no reason to [change],'' Smith said when asked who would be his starting running back next year. "Thomas is our starter, 1,300 yards last year -- you go from there.

    "We haven't looked to trade Thomas Jones at all. Just like Tommie Harris and all our good players, you would like to keep them all here.''
    Link

    Why Not Us ?

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

    Yeah, I heard this rumored as well. I agree, the big question is why would the Bears do it? Does Jones do things like apply at Circuit City? Bang his fists on tables when things don't go his way? Have a tendency to stray into the opposing teams stands?
    I'm having flashbacks to another Chicago-Indy trade that seemed too good to be true.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

      I never really liked Jones...
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

        Jones is a consumate pro and a very talented back. This is DREAM land if you think you're getting him for a THIRD ROUND PICK!!!!!!!!! LOL

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

          I thought these rumors were old. Is this resurfacing again? Coltpower says it's a dead issue.

          http://colts.scout.com/2/523357.html

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

            Originally posted by cramerica
            I thought these rumors were old. Is this resurfacing again? Coltpower says it's a dead issue.

            http://colts.scout.com/2/523357.html
            Mort also said that rumors in Feb. are a lot more credible than rumors in March-April.
            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

              The Colt slight of hand taking place here I'd say. Could be Polian making sure someone doesn't try and move up in the draft to take his running back/full back. {i.e. no need for another team to make the move above the Colts since they're getting a RB in Jones}?
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

                I heard that this deal was dead. Of course, you can't believe anything you hear in the days before the draft. Who knows? I would rather draft someone than trade for Jones.
                Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Colts considering trade for Thomas Jones ?

                  Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty
                  I heard that this deal was dead. Of course, you can't believe anything you hear in the days before the draft. Who knows? I would rather draft someone than trade for Jones.
                  Obnox, I don't see the Colts going after Jones, rather they are looking at White. Dungy has wanted a fullback for a long time and I think Polian will probably accomodate him since the Colts are a pass first team. They will be disapponted if they don't get Edge's replacement here.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X