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
    BTW... We're still in strawman territory unless you can explain how my opinion of Boom's game against Denver has anything to do with my opinion of Trent's entire time as a Colt or his career in general? Or how Boom's one game should somehow be a focus of this discussion about Trent?
    1. You really need to look up the definition of strawman.

    2. I just did. This whole conversation was kicked off because of you comparing Boom's game agaisnt Denver, to Trent. In the Den game thread, you and others, were making comments about how good Boom played and how if Trent played it wouldn't have been as good. I made a post something like " At thinking 2.7ypc is a good game" and away we went.

    If you go back to where I quoted you from like page 10, I said something like "Just admit that 2.7ypc is a bad game, and I'll shut up" and the quote I just posted of you was the response. Instead of just admitting that 2.7ypc was bad, you doubled down and told me it wasn't just good, it was "great."

    So if you really didn't think 2.7ypc was good and was just arguing that Boom was better than Trent overall, then why didn't you just take my out, admit that 2.7 is bad, and got me to shut the hell up?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

      I gotta go.... But when I get back we can debate the definition of strawman argument in this thread. That would then be the ultimate strawman argument of all time! Kudos for that strategic move!
      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

        This forum has had an obsession with scarecrow fallacies lately. The Lance thread, this thread--I don't really think any of it is really intentional strawman. I think all of these things kind of filter into our particular arguments for or against Trent/Boom and how the numbers correlate to their effectiveness in our running game. Just my opinion, as always.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

          Report: Colts suspended RB Trent Richardson for AFC title game


          by Larry Hartstein | CBSSports.com
          Tue, 20 Jan 2015 5:35 PM ET


          Colts running back Trent Richardson wasn't active for the AFC Championship Game after missing Saturday's walkthrough for what he called a family emergency. According to WTHR's Bob Kravitz, Richardson "didn't call" team officials to let them know he'd be absent.

          NFL reporter Howard Balzer says the Colts suspended Richardson for the game. Regardless, it was the second straight game in which he was inactive.

          Richardson is signed for 2015 at nearly $3.2 million, but his future with the team seems tenuous.
          http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fan...afc-title-game

          https://twitter.com/HBalzer721/statu...59887946452993
          Howard Balzer
          ‏@HBalzer721
          Colts, of course, deactivated Trent Richardson Sunday, but also suspended him.

          =====
          chris m. ‏@auchamps4life 4h4 hours ago
          @HBalzer721 Why? Thought it was a family emergency?
          ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Howard Balzer ‏@HBalzer721 3h3 hours ago
          @auchamps4life Good question.
          Last edited by Bball; 01-20-2015, 08:53 PM.
          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 wonder if the other shoe will drop here...

            That being said Trent was the lucky one not being anywhere near that game(same with Xavier Nixon)

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

              With the Superbowl itself, and now DeflateGate soaking up not only the national media's attention but the local media's as well, I wonder if we'll ever find out the truth about the Trent Richardson situation? Family emergency... Suspension... Inactive... Pick one or pick all?

              Was this the conclusion of his season, his Colts career, or his NFL career?
              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
                With the Superbowl itself, and now DeflateGate soaking up not only the national media's attention but the local media's as well, I wonder if we'll ever find out the truth about the Trent Richardson situation? Family emergency... Suspension... Inactive... Pick one or pick all?

                Was this the conclusion of his season, his Colts career, or his NFL career?
                honestly don't care. the way I understand it the cap hit is the same whether we keep him or not, so time to move on. guy clearly didn't work out here, no reason to keep him around for another year of his career and prevent him from trying to find another gig. be pretty surprised if we ever see him get another Colts snap. and if we do, and the cap hits are actually what I understand them to be, again, fire Grigson.

                wish the guy well, seems like a good dude. no one ever said he didn't work hard or whined about touches or whatever. so hey, good luck Trent. not his fault he just wasn't very good and got massively overdrafted.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                  I can't say I don't care, I do have a mild curiosity about what went down, just so we know. Probably won't ever know though.
                  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

                    Grigson is confirming the TRich suspension and has added to to the conversation that he was suspended two games.

                    Grigson: Colts suspended Trent Richardson two games

                    Posted by Mike Wilkening on January 23, 2015, 12:48 PM EST
                    Richardson
                    Getty Images
                    The Colts suspended tailback Trent Richardson for two games, General Manager Ryan Grigson confirmed on Friday.

                    Grigson did not elaborate on the reason for the ban. It wasn’t immediately known whether the suspension would continue on for the 2015 season or whether it would have just encompassed the AFC title game at New England and if the Colts played in Super Bowl XLIX.

                    Richardson was deactivated for Sunday’s loss to the Patriots after not traveling with the club. He missed the club’s Saturday walk-through, though Richardson indicated it was for a “serious family emergency,” per ESPN.com.

                    Howard Balzer of The Sports Xchange reported earlier this week that Richardson had been suspended.

                    Grigson also did not shed much light on whether Richardson would return for the final year of his contract with Indianapolis, saying he would be evaluated just like other players. Richardson is guaranteed $3.18 million in salary in 2015.

                    The Colts traded a No. 1 pick for the 24-year-old Richardson in 2013, but he has not produced as hoped. He was first a healthy scratch for the Colts’ divisional-round win at Denver.
                    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...son-two-games/
                    Last edited by Bball; 01-23-2015, 01:24 PM.
                    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 can't believe this thread got to 22 pages. So Trent was suspended, so did his mom die/was there a family emergency or not?


                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I can't believe this thread got to 22 pages. So Trent was suspended, so did his mom die/was there a family emergency or not?
                        I can't see the team suspending him if he forgot to call because he was dealing with a serious family emergency. With that being said, I can't believe he couldn't have had somebody contact the team. The whole situation is convoluted.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          I can't believe this thread got to 22 pages. So Trent was suspended, so did his mom die/was there a family emergency or not?
                          His mom was fine. I think somebody did a two part joke-
                          Part one: His mom is dying
                          Part two: Of embarrassment

                          And the twitter universe ran with the first part before realizing there was a 2nd part.

                          But regardless of how the rumor got started, it's now been confirmed she's fine.
                          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 Believe_in_blue View Post
                            I can't see the team suspending him if he forgot to call because he was dealing with a serious family emergency. With that being said, I can't believe he couldn't have had somebody contact the team. The whole situation is convoluted.
                            If he was really dealing with a family emergency and didn't have time to call or text the team, or forgot in the heat of the moment, it's still hard to imagine them not only suspending him for the AFCC game but also 2 weeks later for the SB should the Colts be playing in it. Basically, they made sure and suspended him for the entirety of the playoffs.

                            I still think his comment about never being in the same situation as the Denver game again (inactive) is turning out more to be his mouth writing a check his a$$ couldn't cash.
                            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
                              If he was really dealing with a family emergency and didn't have time to call or text the team, or forgot in the heat of the moment, it's still hard to imagine them not only suspending him for the AFCC game but also 2 weeks later for the SB should the Colts be playing in it. Basically, they made sure and suspended him for the entirety of the playoffs.

                              I still think his comment about never being in the same situation as the Denver game again (inactive) is turning out more to be his mouth writing a check his a$$ couldn't cash.
                              I would be disappointed the TPTB if they suspended him for forgetting to call in the wake of a serious family medical issue. I also think suspending him for that comment he made would be pretty weak. I didn't care much at first, but now I'm curious as to why he was suspended.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Trent Richardson Thread

                                Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
                                I would be disappointed the TPTB if they suspended him for forgetting to call in the wake of a serious family medical issue. I also think suspending him for that comment he made would be pretty weak. I didn't care much at first, but now I'm curious as to why he was suspended.
                                I don't think they suspended him for the comment. I think the comment, if taken as quoted, might've been a glimpse into his mindset and what actions he was about to take to try and cash that check his mouth was writing. It wasn't perfectly stated this way but if we read his comment and think he means he's going to work his a$$ off and do whatever the coaches want him to do so that he'll never be inactive for a game again then everything is fine. That's the way most of us took it on first read. But now, in hindsight and in context of everything that has occurred, I think that was a misreading of what was in his mind when he said it. And really, the stretch is to make it be more about him working hard to avoid that situation. The words as quoted really point more to a mindset that he was going to put his foot down and tell them/show them they couldn't do this to him (at least not without consequence... such as not showing for a walk thru or a b-tch session).
                                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

                                Working...
                                X