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

  • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I seriously doubt the contract says "Suspension = voided contract". It's more likely that whatever triggered the suspension is something that is spelled out as a voidable contract issue. IOW, the suspension is just another symptom of whatever would be argued to trigger the voiding of the contract, not the actual reason itself.
    I love you, man.... but no one said that. Once. The tweet said that the suspension allows them to walk away. It nor no one here said "suspension = voided contract". The tweet also said his contract had strong voiding language.

    When one considers that there was never really a reason given for his "suspension"... and that he doesn't have a history of suspensions... and that they can walk away from a large amount of money if he's "suspended".... they could be pulling a Belichick here and saying they are following the contract to the letter of the law, and yet still be pulling a dirty. As in, they don't have plans for him, don't want to pay him, so they suspend him along the lines of one his strongly verbalized suspension parameters of his contract. And if that is the case, which I really hope isn't, then ya, by all means the player's association will surely come a-knockin'. THAT SAID... don't take that as I think that's what's going on. Following the letter of the law, I can only hope and assume that the Colts are doing the right thing and that they had a valid reason to suspend and possibly cut ties with Trent. It's hard to say because there was never a reason given.

    The only reason I'm not fully subscribed to that theory is that I don't recall any likewise behavior from Grigson doing stuff like that in the past. Then again, I don't really follow every one of his player transactions.

    And there is also the eensie-weensie, tiny little detail that as of right now Trent Richardson is still a part of this team, and as likely as his departure seems, there actually might be a chance he remains with the team, and this argument becomes as null and voidable as his contract. As much as people like to hate the guy... there has never really been any details emerged with any truth behind them that would be validation for parting ways... about the only confirmed thing we have is that he missed walk-through due what he said himself was a serious family medical emergency and that he failed to notify the Colts of his absence. I'd surely hope that there was more to go on than just a missed phone call behind an emergency.... but even you have to admit there's little else to go on in terms of Trent "causing problems" off the field. Suspensions usually regard off-the-field issues, not on-the-field issues.

    Not saying why he was suspended is probably to do Richardson a favor, not to do any favors for the Colts. Although arguably, it could be said that it would be a favor to the Colts if it meant a little secrecy didn't damage his trade value as adversely as it otherwise could have. But you have to think his trade value is so low now anyway that nothing they could say would make it any lower at this point.
    Must you continue to get little jabs in on this guy post-humously? We understand you didn't like the guy... hell, he probably knows himself by now how much you hate him. The horse is dead, dude.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-26-2015, 02:56 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


    • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Must you continue to get little jabs in on this guy post-humously? We understand you didn't like the guy... hell, he probably knows himself by now how much you hate him. The horse is dead, dude.
      Trent's dead?

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        Trent's dead?
        If he is, his YPC will only drop marginally.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Trent's dead?
          I thought it was apparent it was a joke... guess not.
          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


          • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            I thought it was apparent it was a joke... guess not.


            Sorry man, in no way was it apparent that you were joking. Even now that you said it, I can't really tell that you were joking.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              My humor can be dry. I'll admit that.
              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


              • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                My humor can be dry. I'll admit that.
                The internet is a terrible medium for getting humor across.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  What do we know that makes it sound like dirty pool?

                  If we are to believe the inactive games were to try and paint him into a corner to do something to get himself suspended, that would only be dirty pool in my mind if he was clearly deserving a spot on the roster. Which, considering nearly everyone who touched the ball as a RB outgained him (which includes at Cleveland) then I'd say Grigson went out of his way to give Richardson a chance.

                  I'm not sure what else we know or think we know that would be considered dirty pool?
                  we know he had a reported "family emergency." we know that hasn't been disputed. we know he's suspended. we, apparently, know his contract allows a suspension to void the last year of his deal.

                  we'll likely never know, and that's a good thing, what the "personal reasons" were/are. if it's weight, why not come out and say it? if it was drugs or something it would've come out by now, you'd think anyway. if he got benched and blew up on the staff or whatever that's not "personal reasons," that's conduct detrimental and there's no reason not to say so. I'm more than done with him, but just put two and two together. a contract goes both ways, it's not just on him to act in a professional manner.

                  Grigson's probably going to lose this grievance and it's not going to do the franchise any favors at all.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                    Former agent Joel Corry of CBS confirmed that this is the case. Correy reports that Richardson was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team – a catchall term for any number of violations — and the Colts are now off the hook for his contract next year.
                    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/trent...#ixzz3Q4VHFVNH
                    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


                    • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                      You bolded the wrong part of that quote, lol...

                      You also failed to mention that in that very same article, it was stated that the situation smelled funny, and that the NFLPA will likely challenge it. The main problem is that the Colts haven't come out and said what it was that he was suspended for, which is really weird. Suspensions are usually explained, especially in contract situations like this, and with somewhat high-profile players. They aren't really doing themselves any favors by keeping it under wraps, as long as they do so, they will be questioned, especially because of the context of his contract and the fact they can save a lot of money by "suspending" him.

                      He may very well have done something, and if he did, he deserves it. Either the Colts will come out and divulge more details to absolve themselves... or Trent and/or agent files a complaint and we see some legal funtivities.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-27-2015, 08:28 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


                      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Nowhere does it say the situation smells funny.
                        If anything smells funny it's the coincidentally timed 'family emergency'....

                        Of course the union will defend the player in this circumstance, but that doesn't mean they will win. We'll have to see what conduct detrimental to the team really means.
                        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


                        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Nowhere does it say the situation smells funny.
                          If anything smells funny it's the coincidentally timed 'family emergency'....

                          Of course the union will defend the player in this circumstance, but that doesn't mean they will win. We'll have to see what conduct detrimental to the team really means.
                          Can I not paraphrase without you arguing with me, or is that something you just refuse to process? I mean, can we at least try to understand what my paraphrase meant?

                          Originally posted by Stephen Holder
                          I haven't seen Richardson's contract and I don't know what #Colts allege he did, but this smells like something the NFLPA will challenge


                          That's what "smells funny". He says it right there in the article. That quote isn't even the only one in the article suggesting that this move will be challenged. I figured I could paraphrase the "funny" to avoid typing out the rest of the quote, and you'd be able to understand what I meant, but evidently not. Your bias against this guy has drifted firmly over to the just plain silly hate area of the spectrum. It's not enough for you to diss the guy left and right about his on-field production, now you've moved on to inventing silly conspiracy crap questioning his off-field integrity. Why on earth would Trent go public and lie about a family medical emergency? There's many folks who have expressed the sentiment that this suspension/contract situation doesn't smell right, so you're pretty much on an island with the whole "Trent made this family emergency thing up" theory, which doesn't even really make sense, even from his perspective, in both family- and business-terms.

                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-27-2015, 09:56 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


                          • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                            Well, it does seem like something the Player's Association would challenge so yeah, it does smell that way. But they'd challenge almost any circumstance imaginable to defend the player's contract and payment. As they should. It's their job. But nowhere does the article say the situation smells 'funny'.

                            In fact, the part you are quoting is just a quoted tweet the article used and not a direct implication of what the article is saying so there's not a lot to hang your hat on there anyway. Of course the player's association will challenge a voided contract (if the Colts even do that in the first place). The real news is the quote I presented above and that was Trent was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. Whatever that might turn out to be. So it wasn't actually 'personal reasons' officially.

                            Yes, I have my doubts that Richardson faced a family emergency. The more that comes about about his being gone that weekend the more I doubt it.

                            I don't know what the Colts might consider conduct detrimental to the team but I have my doubts attending to a legitimate family emergency would rise to that. That doesn't seem like a PR battle the Colts would ever want to wade into.

                            I still think his mouth wrote a check that his a$$ couldn't cash and whatever he chose as his method to cash that "I'll never be inactive again for a game" check, will be a large part of that conduct detrimental to the team allegation that got him suspended.

                            Even if there was a hugely coincidental family emergency that occurred that weekend (and that stretches the laws of coincidence), we're going to find out the mold was already cast IMHO and it had no bearing on his suspension.
                            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


                            • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                              Frederick Breedon/Getty Images
                              Former NFL running back and 2005 MVP Shaun Alexander had some interesting advice for Trent Richardson and still thinks that the Colts' back can be successful, he told Yahoo Sports' Eric Edholm.

                              Running back Trent Richardson has had a very tough two years with the Colts, and it's widely assumed that the Colts will be moving on from the running back this offseason. But at least one notable former NFL player isn't giving up on Richardson yet.

                              Former running back Shaun Alexander, who rushed for 9,453 yards and 100 touchdowns in his career and won the NFL MVP award in 2005 after rushing for 1,880 yards and 27 touchdowns, had some interesting advice for Trent Richardson.

                              "The NFL bombards you with X's and O's, learning the schemes and getting up to speed on the knowledge of the game," Alexander, who like Richardson played collegiately at Alabama, told Yahoo Sports' Eric Edholm. You can slowly become robotic and so worry about being right that you forget what made you a talent."

                              "You have these shoulders and these legs and you're exploding through the hole, and you didn't know what would happen like you were riding a wave. All of a sudden you pop a big one. If you're too hindered by X's and O's, you lose that. All those things that made you special, they can be restricted by the scheme sometimes."

                              Alexander noted that in his first year in the NFL, Mike Holmgren (Seattle's coach) tried to get him to run a certain way. Alexander realized that it wasn't working and told Holmgren that he had to be allowed to do what made him so successful in high school and college. He would go on to put together five straight seasons with at least 1,000 rushing yards and double-digit touchdowns.

                              Is this Trent Richardson's problem? Has he become so weighed down by focusing on doing the right thing that he's stopped doing what made him successful in the first place? It's hard to tell, but at least one former NFL running back thinks that might be the case with Richardson. Is this the reason why the Colts and running backs coach David Walker "mutually parted ways?" Is there still hope that Richardson could develop into a good NFL running back?

                              Ultimately, this is something that we can't really tell, but it's an interesting theory from someone who's been through it. Hopefully Richardson can get things figured out, but even if he does, it's unlikely to be with the Colts, as it seems likely that the team will move on from him this offseason. Because, while we can't pinpoint the exact reasons for the struggles, we can clearly see the lack of production: in 31 career games with the Colts (including playoffs), Richardson has rushed for 978 yards and six touchdowns total, averaging 3.05 yards per carry. The Colts suspended him for personal reasons before the AFC Championship game, and with it being a two game suspension he would miss the first game of the 2015 season if still on the roster.

                              Wherever Richardson is playing in 2015, I hope that he can get things worked out and contribute at the NFL level, and at least Shaun Alexander thinks that he still can get there.
                              http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/2/4...chardson-colts
                              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


                              • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                I was hoping Richardson was gonna be the Colts version of Marshawn Lynch. Colts always suck at running the ball for some reason. Even when Manning was here, which I don't get. Having a great qb should make it easier for the rb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X