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

The Official Trent Richardson Thread

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

  • #61
    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    To piggyback on that whole "tossing out Boom's three longest carries" thing: Isn't it a positive trait of running backs to have the ability to make big plays? Why treat those runs as though they are essentially flukes? Trent hasn't been able to fluke his way into anything longer than what, 27 yards?, in this three NFL seasons.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      I think we all agree that if TR came into the NFL the same way Herron did the outrage wouldn't be as great. If Grigson had just admitted he screwed up then we could all relax somewhat. But as cdash says the more that is expected the more criticism. Yes TR shouldn't be blamed because Grigson paid dearly for the Brooklyn Bridge

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        lose weight, try again, or gain weight and become a fullback, I think those are his only two options
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          It wasn't Trent, Grigson coulda traded a 1st for ANY RB and I'd have called it stupid, including Peterson (pre-beating on kids), Lynch, McCoy, Murray, whoever, any of em. I remember me and cdash specifically calling it dumb as hell the minute it happened. RBs are simply not very important anymore, hell, short of the handful of offenses that still employ actual FBs they're pretty easily the least important offensive position.

          Trent sucks, that's a problem. Grigson apparently thinking any RB, let alone TRich, was worth a 1st is a massively bigger problem. I'm up and down on Pep and Pagano but them putting the ball in Luck's hands down the stretch the last two years when things got serious tells me they're working with tied hands in the regular season. Whoever our pass catcher scouts are promote them to GM as soon as our season ends, whenever it is. I wanted to adore Grigson man, guy's a Boilermaker, but he's just sincerely bad at his job.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            Chuck Pagano explains Trent Richardson's benching
            253


            By Chris Wesseling
            Around the NFL Writer
            Published: Jan. 12, 2015 at 09:31 p.m. Updated: Jan. 13, 2015 at 12:02 p.m.
            Trent Richardson was a healthy scratch Sunday in the Indianapolis Colts' biggest game of the season.

            Explaining the decision to deactivate Richardson in favor of a running back signed off the street just last week, coach Chuck Pagano cited special teams experience.


            "Michael Hill was a special teams player and Trent -- it's not any knock on Trent -- but Trent's never been asked to be a special teams player," Pagano said Monday, via The Indianapolis Star. "He was doing everything for a period of time to try to get himself ready. But Michael was more ready to go out and be the third back and contribute on special teams."

            That makes sense. But it doesn't address Richardson losing the No. 2 job to Zurlon Tipton, a hybrid back with 10 career rushing attempts entering the postseason.

            With the season on the line, the Colts couldn't escape the plain fact that Richardson had been holding the offense back since the mid-season injuries to Ahmad Bradshaw and Reggie Wayne.

            Even for a player due $3.184 million in guaranteed salary, that bodes poorly for Richardson's chances of earning a spot on the final roster next summer.
            http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...dsons-benching
            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, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              It wasn't Trent, Grigson coulda traded a 1st for ANY RB and I'd have called it stupid, including Peterson (pre-beating on kids), Lynch, McCoy, Murray, whoever, any of em. I remember me and cdash specifically calling it dumb as hell the minute it happened. RBs are simply not very important anymore, hell, short of the handful of offenses that still employ actual FBs they're pretty easily the least important offensive position.

              Trent sucks, that's a problem. Grigson apparently thinking any RB, let alone TRich, was worth a 1st is a massively bigger problem. I'm up and down on Pep and Pagano but them putting the ball in Luck's hands down the stretch the last two years when things got serious tells me they're working with tied hands in the regular season. Whoever our pass catcher scouts are promote them to GM as soon as our season ends, whenever it is. I wanted to adore Grigson man, guy's a Boilermaker, but he's just sincerely bad at his job.
              You throw around "sucks" pretty loosely, man. I disagree that TRich sucks; I disagree that Grigson is "bad at his job". One, Grigson took a blown up team, and has rebuilt it quickly into a team that has made the playoffs every year he's been here, and has advanced further every year. So whether you like it or not, he's doing something right in the big picture. Grigson has done a damn good job; the only part of this team that I have issue with is the running game, and even then I'm not entirely sure it's all on Grigson. I still look a lot towards the offensive line and Pep. The line is the biggest reason for our failures in the running game, period point blank. Had this line been functioning anywhere near a normal level the past two years, I seriously doubt we'd be seeing Trent benched, and all of the *****ing surrounding that. TRich's highlight reel basically stops the moment he comes to the Colts. I don't think TRich (or any any of our backs) are used correctly. I mostly look towards Pep for that. Our running game has gone downhill ever since Pep entered the picture.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-14-2015, 08:56 AM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                I'm not angry with him. I never was. It was never about him. Trent seems like a good dude who genuinely wants to help the team win. My anger has been directed at Grigson for making that stupid trade. That doesn't mean I'm going to simply give Richardson a pass on his complete lack of production though. It doesn't mean I'm going to make excuses for the guy for not producing. If that's irrational behavior, then you basically think every sports fan ever is irrational.
                You might be, but you're not someone that I've seen fill game threads with snide comments directed at Trent, for no good reason other than to poke.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  Who is saying that?
                  Those who say that Boom has been prducing. So much so that 2.7ypc game is now a good game.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Those who say that Boom has been prducing. So much so that 2.7ypc game is now a good game.
                    Against a top tier defense where the average is lowered at the end to eat clock. 2.7 sure as hell ain't that bad.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                      Against a top tier defense where the average is lowered at the end to eat clock. 2.7 sure as hell ain't that bad.
                      Denver, on average, gives up 3.7yds per rush. So yeah, I'd say it's still squarely in the bad category.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Denver, on average, gives up 3.7yds per rush. So yeah, I'd say it's still squarely in the bad category.
                        He was averaging 3.4 the first 50 minutes of the game. So prior to us trying to run the clock out he wasn't that far from average.

                        Since you have got to quit cherry picking Stats hoping desperately to prove that richardson and herron are similar. They aren't.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          So I'm cherry picking stats, I assume because I've said about 3 Boom's longest runs, and yet here you are trying to erase the last 10mins of the game? Nothing like whining about cherry picking and then doing the exact same thing.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            I would be interested to know what TRich's weight was when he entered the league versus his 2nd season, versus now. We have the rumor that there was a weigh in issue this past week, that may or may not have any basis in fact.... but we also had a game last season when we had a different announcing team (probably was a FOX game) and one of the announcers out of the blue started talking about Trent being a disappointment and then began to talk about weight issues. He was talking about explosiveness and how even a little extra weight could be harmful to a RB. So I wonder if he was noticing something, guessing, or possibly had someone in the organization say something?

                            Whatever TRich's problem is, it goes way beyond the system or the line. He just doesn't look like an NFL RB at all. Let alone one that would be picked #3 overall only 3 years ago, or traded for a 1st round pick, and has had no known injury of significance to explain it.

                            Admittedly, I didn't watch him when he was in Cleveland other than what we got to see on Sportscenter so I don't know when it became apparent there was a problem, but anyone (mostly) that has watched his Colts time has to admit he is extremely flawed as an NFL RB to the point that he looks like he will be out of the league within a year or two.
                            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, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So I'm cherry picking stats, I assume because I've said about 3 Boom's longest runs, and yet here you are trying to erase the last 10mins of the game? Nothing like whining about cherry picking and then doing the exact same thing.
                              Except even your cherry picked stats still make trent look like crap.

                              And I'd you want to hold booms stats against him on his running out the clock then fine. Just remember the drive was successful. Some trent rarely if ever could do

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                I would be interested to know what TRich's weight was when he entered the league versus his 2nd season, versus now. We have the rumor that there was a weigh in issue this past week, that may or may not have any basis in fact.... but we also had a game last season when we had a different announcing team (probably was a FOX game) and one of the announcers out of the blue started talking about Trent being a disappointment and then began to talk about weight issues. He was talking about explosiveness and how even a little extra weight could be harmful to a RB. So I wonder if he was noticing something, guessing, or possibly had someone in the organization say something?

                                Whatever TRich's problem is, it goes way beyond the system or the line. He just doesn't look like an NFL RB at all. Let alone one that would be picked #3 overall only 3 years ago, or traded for a 1st round pick, and has had no known injury of significance to explain it.

                                Admittedly, I didn't watch him when he was in Cleveland other than what we got to see on Sportscenter so I don't know when it became apparent there was a problem, but anyone (mostly) that has watched his Colts time has to admit he is extremely flawed as an NFL RB to the point that he looks like he will be out of the league within a year or two.
                                And there it is. This is my problem with your stance --- it has never even seemed like you've taken one iota of effort to actually get a good bearing on this guy at all and yet you've developed in your mind the utmost resolve that he sucks and has never had what it takes, and that I take big issue with.

                                Your snapshot of this guy is basically since he joined the Colts, and therefore, it is a limited snapshot.

                                And even *you* have to admit that it's been a less-than-stellar situation for every back involved here. This team has borked the running game from top to bottom. You cannot even begin to argue that any back has come here and blossomed. What most of you deem as "success" in Colts running-game terms would qualify as mediocre production at best on most other teams and that may be largely because we've been conditioned by a terrible run game for basically the last decade.

                                Trent has also been playing with injuries throughout his stint here, particularly in his legs, but has rarely not made himself available despite those injuries, nor has he complained or made excuses.

                                This all plays into your view of him.

                                I just said it yesterday --- go do a quick Google search of his highlights (that's about all we really have) but after you're watching that, you have *got* to admit that this guy has special qualities *in him* that he's capable of. Beyond what Boom or DBrown and even Ahmad can do. Here are a few just to get started:

                                Here's his Alabama highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlwXtk90Ndk

                                And here's his Cleveland highlights:


                                His stint in Cleveland was a productive one, even if some of his numbers weren't amazing. Andrew Luck had a few non-amazing stat categories his rookie year, too. But there were plays that Trent produced where you went, "Wow, there are less than 5 guys in the league capable of making that move."

                                Right now, those qualities are absolutely being quelled. I don't know why. Is it mental? Is it physical? Is it because our system sucks, or that he just doesn't matchup well with this particular system? I'm a big believer in "fit"... and it's entirely possible that we just aren't the right fit for him. The thing I take away is that the guy we see in those videos is nothing like what we've seen. Why? I can't figure it out. I do question very much if this coaching staff is maximizing his abilities, and based off all the other evidence in our running game, it's a likely factor... these guys suck at putting together a successful, consistent running game.

                                But no, I absolutely do not agree with you that he's shown extreme flaws historically. He at one point in time showed some very, very good traits. Those traits stopped being evident in his tenure here with the Colts. The whole question is why, and can it be fixed. If he's a out of the league in a year or two, that is a damn shame, because we all would have been robbed of a helluva experience watching this guy at his full potential.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-14-2015, 03:39 PM.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X